‘w‘f LIBRARY 10%;) MiCI nut,“ . State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled Influence of Temporal Distance on Career Choice: Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectations presented by Seungcheol Lee has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts degree in Communication W Major Professor’s Signature ra/ l rl / 0200 Ci Date MSU is an Affinnative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE :31 3A3} 29311235 5/08 K:lProi/Acc&Pres/CIRCIDateDue.indd INFLUENCE OF TEMPORAL DISTANCE ON CAREER CHOICE: SELF-EFFICACY AND OUTCOME EXPECTATIONS By Seungcheol Lee A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Communication 2009 ABSTRACT INFLUENCE OF TEMPORAL DISTANCE ON CAREER CHOICE: SELF-EFFICACY AND OUTCOME EXPECTATIONS By Seungcheol Lee The current study examined the effect of time perspective on college students’ a4} n... III social cognitive career choice. Self-efficacy beliefs were construed as feasibility considerations, while outcome expectations were posited as desirability considerations in 7...“. -- career choice. Based on construal level theory, it was hypothesized that temporal distance to career entry would be associated negatively with the perceived importance of self- efficacy and positively with the perceived importance of outcome expectations. Perceived support and barriers, as well as pragmatic versus idealistic selves were expected to moderate the relationship. The data from 180 US. and 215 Korean undergraduate students showed no significant main effects of temporal distance. None of the linear, exponential, and hyperbolic relationships were significant. However, the three-way interaction of temporal distance, country, and perceived support was significant for the physical reward dimension of outcome expectations. For Korean participants with a low level of perceived support, physical rewards became less important as the time of career entry approached. Dedicated to my beloved mother iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost I offer my sincerest gratitude to my academic advisor, Dr. Hee Sun Park, who has supported me throughout my thesis with her patience and expertise while allowing me the room to work in my own way. Without her encouragement and support, this thesis would not have been completed. I gratefully acknowledge my committee members, Dr. Timothy Levine and Dr. J aeMin Cha, for their truly constructive advice and valuable feedback. Their insights and encouragement enabled me to further extend my research. Words fail me to express my appreciation to my wife for her dedication and persistent confidence in me. Were it not for her unconditional love and sacrifice, my graduate study would not have been possible. The baby we are expecting has been and will be the source of my delight. My little rabbit, ANCOVA, also contributed to this thesis by cheering me up late at night and waking me up early in the morning. Last but not least, I would like to extend my special gratitude to my brother who always stands by me. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. vi INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 3 Social Cognitive Career Theory .................................................................. 3 Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectations ................................................... 4 Construal Level Theory .............................................................................. 7 Feasibility and Desirability Considerations ................................................ 8 HYPOTHESIS AND RESEARCH QUESTION ................................................. 11 Main Hypothesis ....................................................................................... 11 Moderating Variables ................................................................................ 12 Research Question .................................................................................... 13 METHOD ............................................................................................................. 14 Participants ................................................................................................ 14 Procedure .................................................................................................. 15 Measurement ............................................................................................. 16 RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 21 Self-Efficacy ............................................................................................. 23 Physical Rewards ...................................................................................... 25 Self-Evaluative Outcomes ........................................................................ 28 Forced Choice Question ............................................................................ 30 Pattern of Relationship .............................................................................. 30 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 32 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 38 APPENDIX ........................................................................................................... 39 Research Participant Information and Consent Form ............................... 39 Questionnaire ............................................................................................ 42 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Correlation Matrix of Variables .......................................................................... 22 Table 2. Multiple Regression Analysis for the Perceived Importance of Self-Efficacy... 24 Table 3. Multiple Regression Analysis for the Perceived Importance of Physical Rewards ............................................................................................................................ 27 Table 4. Summary of Unstandardized Simple Slopes ...................................................... 28 Table 5. Multiple Regression Analysis for the Perceived Importance of Self-Evaluative Outcomes ............................................................................................................ 29 vi INTRODUCTION The process of career development continues throughout an individual’s life as they make a series of decisions that have occupational consequences (Super, 1980, Zunker, 2002). However, the most influential decisions regarding an individual’s future career are often made in college (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005), where they crystallize their career preference and implement their career choice (Super, 1980). Career choice is a vital developmental task for college students in their school-to- work transition (Super, Savickas, & Super, 1996); however, it is subject to change over time. Up to two-thirds of all students change their initial career choice (Astin, 1977), and over a half of students with a declared major change it at least once (Kelly & White, 1986). Many factors may contribute to the prevalent changes in career choice. For example, as students accumulate experiences over time, their skills, needs and values regarding careers are modified (Arthur, Hall, & Lawrence, 1989). Students find their strengths and weaknesses and they become more knowledgeable about future careers (Moss & Frieze, 1993). The current study hypothesized that the temporal distance might be a factor that influences college students’ career choice. Time perspective influences an individual’s perception of self-efficacy and outcome expectations (Maddux, 1995), which are important determinants of career choice (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994). Self-efficacy beliefs may become more important as the time of career entry approaches, while outcome expectations may become more important for career choice in the distant future. For example, many college freshmen aspire to become physicians because medical occupations guarantee high social status and monetary benefits (Dey, Astin, & Korn, 1991). However, the majority of them abandon this goal and find alternatives during their undergraduate years because they feel they lack the necessary academic ability (Antony, 1998). A large number of students choose engineering majors that offer lucrative salaries after graduation. Nevertheless, many of them change their initial choice because they are unable to meet the academic and professional demands (Astin, 1977; Hackett, Betz, Casas, & Rocha-Singh, 1992). Based on social cognitive career theory (Lent et al., 1994) and construal level theory (Liberman & Trope, 1998), the current study examined how the temporal distance to career entry influenced undergraduate students’ career choice by systematically changing the perceived importance of self-efficacy and outcome expectations. Additionally, the study examined the linear, exponential, and hyperbolic patterns of changes over time. LITERATURE REVIEW Social Cognitive Career Theory Social cognitive career theory (SCCT; Lent et al., 1994) has become a major perspective for studying academic and career development in recent years (Betz, 2008; Lent, Sheu, Singley 2008; Swanson & Gore, 2000). The theory proposes dynamic models of academic and career-related interests, choice and performance. According to SCCT, an individual’s academic and career development is a function of the interplay between personal, environmental, and behavioral variables (Lent et al., 1994). By emphasizing these dynamic aspects of career development, SCCT is distinguished from traditional trait-oriented approaches in career development models that consider personal variables as global, static self attributes (Lent et al., 1994). The basic assumptions of SCCT are anchored within social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986, 1997) that is founded upon the model of triadic reciprocal causality (Bandura, 1977). In this model, individuals, their behaviors, and external environments all operate as interlocking determinants that affect one another bidirectionally (Bandura, 1986). Individuals not only respond to environmental events, but also exercise control over their own behavior which then influences the environment and their cognitive, affective, and biological states (Bandura, 1986, 1989). Based on this principle of triadic reciprocal causality, SCCT regards career choice behavior as the mutual transaction of person (e. g., personal predispositions), environmental (e. g., social support), and behavioral (e. g., goal implementation) variables. Personal and environmental factors collectively impact an individual’s career choice, which in turn alters an indi'vidual’s cognition and emotion, as well as environment. Among various personal determinants within the triadic causal system, self- efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations are particularly important for career choice (Lent et al., 1994). From the perspective of social cognitive theory, goal-directed behavior is affected by self-efficacy, outcome expectations, as well as environmental support and resources (Bandura, 1986). In the same vein, SCCT posits that career behavior is largely influenced by self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations, which operate in concert with a variety of personal, contextual, and learning variables in developing an individual’s academic and career trajectories (Lent etal., 2003). Self-Eflicacy and Outcome Expectations Self-efficacy refers to “people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). Individuals cognitively process information concerning their ability and regulate their choice behavior and exert effort accordingly (Bandura, 1977). As a result, self-efficacy beliefs determine the choice of goals, the level of effort exerted on that action, persistence in the face of adversity, and the performance level (Bandura, 1986). Self-efficacy is not a passive, static, and trait-like personal attribute, but rather is regarded as “a dynamic set of self-beliefs that are specific to particular performance domains and that interact complexly with other person, behavior, and contextual factors” (Lent et al., 1994, p. 83). In addition, social cognitive theory hypothesizes that an individual’s beliefs about their self-efficacy are concerned “not with the skills one has but with judgments of what one can do with whatever skills one possesses” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). Based on this distinction, self-efficacy is not synonymous with objectively assessed skills (Lent et al., 1994). Instead, it is concerned with an individual’s subjective beliefs and thus is subject to change. Outcome expectations are people’s judgments of the potential consequence that a certain behavior will produce (Bandura, 1986). Choice behavior is largely dependent on the subjective probability that certain behavior will produce particular outcomes (e. g., Vroom, 1964). As a consequence, outcome expectations are partly determined by self- efficacy beliefs. An individual’s expected outcomes depend on their judgments of how well they will be able to perform in given situations (Bandura, 1986). For example, individuals who are apprehensive of communication will expect jeering and embarrassment as the outcome of their public speech, while individuals who feel competent in communication will anticipate a success in persuasion and gaining credibility. Consequently, outcome expectations depend on the adequacy of an individual’s performances to some extent. However, self-efficacy and outcome expectations should be differentiated. Individuals may believe that a behavior will produce desirable outcomes, but they may not engage in the behavior because they question whether they can actually execute the necessary activities (Bandura, 1986). In addition, the relationship between self-efficacy and outcome expectations is not fixed, but contingent on the nature of a particular action (Bandura, 1995). In activities where outcomes are highly contingent on the quality of performance, self-efficacy is a predominant determinant of expected outcomes. In contrast, when outcomes are loosely tied to the quality of performance, outcome expectations are independent of self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations have a profound impact on career choice behavior. According to Lent et al., (1994) self-efficacy and outcome expectations influence the development of interest. Interest, in turn, promotes career choice goals, which increase the probability of taking choice actions. Choice actions then lead to performance domains and attainment experiences, which reinforce or debilitate self- efficacy and outcome expectations. As a result, a high level of self-efficacy and positive outcome expectations in career choice facilitate clear goal setting and goal-oriented behaviors, whereas a low level of self-efficacy and negative outcome expectations decrease the possibility of taking career goals and action courses (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996; Betz & Voyten, 1997; Hackett & Betz, 1981; Lent et al., 1994). Furthermore, self-efficacy and outcome expectations are good predictors of performance attainment and persistence (Fouad & Smith, 1996; Lapan, Shaughnessy & Boggs, 1996; Lent et al., 2003; Lent et al., 2008; Schaefers, Epperson & Nauta, 1997), and consequently, academic and career satisfaction (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Steca, 2003; Lent et al., 2005). The influence of self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations on career behavior may be affected by time. Bandura (1986) stated that the time elapsing between the assessment of self-efficacy and the actual behavior affects the strength of self-efficacy on behavior. Hesketh (2000) argued that since all career choices are about future behavior, associating outcome expectations with timing is critical. Lent et a1. (1994) also suggested that self-efficacy and outcome expectations have different importance at any given point of time or for particular individuals over time. Nevertheless, few studies have examined the effect of time on career behavior (Lent et al., 2008) or social cognitive behavior in general (Maddux, 1995). Therefore, how time systematically influences self- efficacy and outcome expectations in career choice remains an important open question. Construal Level Theory Construal level theory (CLT; Liberman & Trope, 1998) proposes that temporal distance systematically changes mental construal of situations, which in turn influences the judgments, predictions and choices of future events. In other words, temporal distance determines the value of future events by systematically changing the way they are construed. Individuals construct high-level construals for distant future events, while they employ low-level construals for near future events. For example, in Liberman and Trope’s (1998) study, when participants were asked to imagine themselves engaging in an action (e.g., making a list), they used subordinate low-level descriptions (e. g., writing things down) in a near future condition, while they used superordinate high-level descriptions (e. g., getting organized) in a distant future condition. The same information was construed at a higher, abstract level when it pertained to the distant future events than the near future events. High-level construals consist of abstract, schematic, and decontextualized mental representation of future events, which includes the perception of central, abstract, and goal-relevant features of the decision. Low-level construals comprise concrete and contextual details, and represent more specific and contextualized features of future events (Trope & Liberman, 2003). The mental representations of the distant future are based on superordinate high-level construals. As a result, decisions regarding distant future events are likely to be based on relatively central and abstract features of the event. In contrast, the mental representations of the near future are based on subordinate low- level construals, thus decisions regarding the near future tend to be based on more incidental and peripheral aspects of the event (Liberman & Trope, 1998). In short, high- level construals predominate in distant future decisions, whereas low-level construals take a priority in near future decisions (Liberman, Sagristano, & Trope, 2002; Liberman & Trope; 1998; Trope & Liberman, 2000). CLT proposes that the value of future events changes as the relative importance of high- and low-level construals changes over time. The value associated with high-level construals becomes prominent in the distant future, whereas the value associated with low-level construals becomes important in the near future. As a result, the value associated with low-level construals is discounted over time, while the value associated with high-level construals is augmented over time. Specifically, when the value associated with the high-level construal of an event is positive, the value of the event becomes more positive over time. In contrast, when the value associated with the high- level construal is negative, the value of an event becomes more negative over time (Liberman & Trope, 1998). For example, in Trope and Liberman’s (2000) study, participants preferred a job opportunity which was interesting but involved uninteresting training if they are requested to start the job a year later. On the other hand, they evaluated an uninteresting job with interesting training more favorably if they were asked to start the job next week. Consequently, the interesting job was perceived as more attractive and the boring job was considered as less attractive over time delay. Feasibility and Desirability Considerations The key concepts in value changes over time are feasibility and desirability considerations (Fujita, Eyal, Chaiken, Trope, & Liberman, 2008; Liberman & Trope, 1998). Desirability refers to the valence of an action's end state, while feasibility reflects the ease or difficulty of reaching the end state (Liberman & Trope, 1998). Desirability is associated with superordinate “why” aspects of an action, which are more abstract and central to the meaning of the action. Feasibility is related to subordinate “how” considerations, which constitute low-level construals of the action (Trope & Liberman, 2000). As a consequence, when the value of future events derives from its desirability aspects, the value is augmented over time. In contrast, when the value is based on its feasibility aspects, the value is diminished as temporal distance increases. Studies have examined the role of feasibility and desirability considerations in decision making. For example, Liberman and Trope (1998) found that participants preferred a word processor with sophisticated function (high desirability) for distant future situations, while they preferred a word processor easier to use (high feasibility) for near future conditions. Sagristano, Trope and Liberman (2002) found that in making decisions about future gambles, payoff (desirability) was considered important for the distant future, whereas probability of winning (feasibility) was regarded as important for the near future. The findings were consistent with the hypothesis that temporal construals highlighted desirability considerations for distant future events, while they emphasized feasibility considerations for near fiJture events. An element of feasibility considerations in career choice is occupational self- efficacy. Self—efficacy refers to an individual’s judgments of their capabilities to perform a specific behavior to reach the goal, thus is “by definition a feasibility concern” (Balliet, 2007, p. 2). Questions concerning occupational self-efficacy address “how” aspects (i.e., feasibility considerations) of career behavior such as whether individuals can perform the specific tasks required in their career fields and whether they can negotiate career-related obstacles (Lent & Brown, 2006a). Those questions are concerned with how individuals select careers that they can succeed in. Although other factors (e. g., actual knowledge or skill levels, qualifications, and geographic limitation) also constitute feasibility considerations, perceived subjective feasibility may play an important role in governing an individual’s behavior (e. g., Bandura & Adams, 1977; Krueger & Dickson, 1994). Therefore, self-efficacy and feasibility considerations have conceptual similarity. Due to this conceptual resemblance, several studies have used these two terms interchangeably (e.g., Krueger, 2000; Linan, Rodriguez-Cohard, & Rueda-Cantuche, 2006: Martire et al., 2003) On the other hand, an aspect of desirability considerations in career choice is occupational outcome expectations. Occupational outcome expectations involve positive consequences of career choice (e.g., Lent et al., 2001; Lent et al., 2003). When prospecting for future careers, individuals usually anticipate desirable outcomes such as salary, benefits, favorable working conditions, social status, and a feeling of accomplishment. Negative outcomes (e. g., moving to remote locations) may be expected in some cases, but often are less important when compared to positive outcomes. Most studies construed outcome expectations regarding career choice as positive and desirable (Lent & Brown, 2006a) with few exceptions (e. g., Hackett et al., 1992). Questions concerning occupational outcome expectations address “why” aspects (i.e., desirability considerations) of career outcome such as a monetary reward, social prestige and self- realization. Therefore, outcome expectations and desirability considerations in career choice are tapping a similar concept. 10 HYPOTHESIS AND RESEARCH QUESTION Main Hypothesis Based on the assumptions of the correspondences between self-efficacy and feasibility considerations, and between outcome expectations and desirability considerations, the current study examined the influence of time perspective on college students’ career choice. CLT predicts that as temporal distance increases, the importance of feasibility considerations (i.e., low-level construals) decreases, while the importance of desirability considerations (i.e., high-level construals) increases (Liberman & Trope, 1998; Trope, & Liberman, 2000; Trope & Liberman, 2003). If college students are about to start their career, self-efficacy (i.e., feasibility considerations) may become more important in choosing a career. In contrast, if they plan to start their career in the distant future, outcome expectations (i.e., desirability considerations) may become more important. The current study examined the effect of temporal distance on participants’ perceived importance of self-efficacy and outcome expectations, instead of their actual occupational self-efficacy and outcome expectations. Since participants had different majors, academic interests, and plans for their future careers, it was difficult to assess their actual level of self-efficacy and outcome expectations. In addition, the actual level of self-efficacy may be confounded with participants’ class standings. For example, freshmen may not yet have professional knowledge, while seniors may be well-trained for their future careers. 11 Therefore, it was hypothesized that temporal distance to career entry would be associated negatively with the perceived importance of self—efficacy and positively with the perceived importance of outcome expectations. Moderating Variables Perceived support and barriers. Individuals are influenced by environmental support and barriers to their career progress. According to Lent et al. (2001), contextual support and barriers moderate the effects of self-efficacy and outcome expectations on career choice. Contextual support is positively related to self-efficacy and outcome expectations, while barriers are negatively related to self-efficacy and outcome expectations (Lent et al., 2001). At the same time, the presence of support and barriers influences career choice behavior (Lent & Brown, 2006b). Consequently, perceived support and barriers may moderate the effect of temporal distance on career choice behavior. Pragmatic self vs. idealistic self A pragmatic self is characterized as a mental representation that is primarily directed by practical concerns and self-interest, while an idealistic self is a mental representation that emphasizes principles and values and seeks to express the person’s sense of true self (Kivet & Tyler, 2007). The distinction between pragmatic versus idealistic selves is relevant to career choice behavior. For example, job applicants may need to select between jobs that allow them to pursue their values and jobs that are financially rewarding (Kivet & Tyler, 2007). Time perspective influences the self-activation for preferences between pragmatic and idealistic concerns. Kivet and Tyler (2007) found that temporal distance was correlated positively with an idealistic self and negatively with a pragmatic self. Self-activation was found to mediate the effect of 12 time perspective on choice behavior. As a result, the activation of pragmatic and idealistic selves may moderate the effect of temporal distance on career choice behavior. Research Question CLT proposes that the value associated with high-level construals is augmented over time, while the value associated with low-level construals is discounted over time. However, the pattern of change over time has not been fully investigated. Most studies in CLT literature manipulated temporal distance as a dichotomy, and used 2 (near vs. distant future) X 2 (desirability vs. feasibility) ANOVA designs (Henderson, Trope, & Carnevale, 2006), with few exceptions (e. g., Pennington & Roese, 2003). Since time has been treated as a categorical variable, the previous studies of CLT did not reflect the continuous nature of time and were not able to examine the pattern of change over time. The current study examined how the perceived importance of self-efficacy and outcome expectations changes as a function of temporal distance. Is there a linear association between temporal distance and the perceived importance of self-efficacy and outcome expectations? Or is there a hyperbolic acceleration or deceleration? Studies have suggested that time discounting in human behavior is reported to follow a hyperbolic fimction (e.g., Ainslie & Haslarn, 1992; Meyerson, Green, & Fristoe, 1995; Roelofsma, 1996). Hyperbolic time discounting is also reported to be relevant to career choice (Hesketh, Watson-Brown, & Whiteley, 1998). Or does the pattern follow an exponential curve, as the utility theory in economics suggests? To address the question, the current study treated time as a continuous variable and examined three types of relationships: linear, exponential, and hyperbolic. The data were collected from both the United States and Korea. 13 METHOD Participants For the US. data, participants were 180 undergraduate students (age M = 20.04, SD = 1.50, 55.4% female) enrolled in a large Midwestern university. Of the participants, 29.4% were freshmen, 21.1% were sophomores, 27.8% were juniors, 16.7% were seniors, and 5.0% were 5th year seniors or above. Most of them (95.5%) were US. citizens and Caucasians (83.3%). One half of participants were communication majors (41.1%) or communication-related majors (8.3%). Exploratory students (i.e., undecided major) were 8.3%. Most participants had a job experience as full-time employees (22.8%) or part-time workers (71.7%). On average, participants had experienced three to four jobs. Additionally, one out of six participants (17.9%) had an internship experience. Many participants (77.9%) were currently employed, working in food/hospitality service (30.0%), retailing (13.5%), and administration (10.0%). More than a half of participants (55.6%) were currently looking for a job. On average, participants planned to graduate in 22.71 months (SD = 14.30) and to start their long-term career after 19.79 months (SD = 16.65) after graduation. Only a small proportion of participants wanted to start their career before graduation (5.0%) or at the time of graduation (21.7%). A large proportion of participants (73.3%) planned to begin their career journey after graduation. On average, participants wanted to start their career in 13.31 months (SD = 16.35) after graduation. For the Korean data, participants were 215 undergraduate students (age M = 21.83, SD = 2.85, 42.8% female) enrolled in a university in Inchon, a city neighboring l4 Seoul. Of the participants, 30.7% were freshmen, 21 .4% were sophomores, 23.7% were juniors, 22.8% were seniors, and 1.4% were 5th year senior or above. Most of them (95.8%) were Koreans, while the rest of participants were Chinese students studying abroad in Korea. Participants had diverse majors: business (25.1%), education (14.4%), international business (10.7%), natural science (10.7%), foreign language (10.2%), etc. The majority of participants (65.1%) did not have any job experience, while only 3.3% had full-time job experience. Of the Korean participants, 17.7% were currently employed, mainly as private tutors (72.7%). Only 5.8% of the participants had an internship experience and 18.6% were currently looking for a job. On average, the Korean participants planned to graduate in 31.13months (SD = 21.84). Most of the participants wanted to start their long time career at the time of graduation (60.9%) or before graduation (27.4). Only 11.6% planned to start career after graduation, after 14.08 months (SD = 11.17) on average. Procedure Prior to participation, all participants were asked to read, understand and sign an informed consent. Then the participants indicated their current academic status and when they plan to start their career. The survey questionnaire asked participants to indicate their perceived importance of self-efficacy and outcome expectations for their future career choice. To control the question order effect, half of the participants responded to questions about self-efficacy, followed by the questions about outcome expectations. For the rest of the participants, the question order was reversed. After answering the closed- ended questions, participants were requested to describe their future career with an open- 15 ended question. Finally, participants provided demographic information and were thanked for participation. Measurement Temporal distance. Temporal distance measured the amount of time participants had before starting their long—term career. It was measured by a two-step process: first, participants were asked to indicate when they expect to graduate, and then they were asked to indicate when they plan to start their career before or after graduation. If participants reported that they expected to graduate in 12 months and to start their career in 6 months after graduation, temporal distance was calculated as 18 months. If participants planned to start their career at the time of graduation, then temporal distance was equal to the amount of time remaining before graduation. If participants already started their career, they were excluded from the analysis. This two-step process was used to help participants estimate their time of career entry more accurately. Perceived importance of self-efficacy. The perceived importance of self-efficacy was measured with a revised version of the occupational self-efficacy scale (Schyns & von Collani, 2002). The original scale was developed to examine the general level self- efficacy associated with various occupations, thus it was more appropriate to the purpose of the current study than other task-specific assessments of self-efficacy (e.g., Betz & Hackett, 1981; Eden & Kinnar, 1991). The original scale asked participants to indicate how strongly they feel competent in various job situations. Schyns and Von Collani’s (2002) original occupational self-efficacy scale reported unidimensionality, x2 = 205.3, df = 138; NFI (normed fit index) = .97; CF I (comparative fit index) = .99; TLI (Tucker- Lewis fit index) = .98; RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) = .06. 16 The revised scale used in the current study asked participants to indicate how strongly they perceived the importance of being competent in choosing their future career, using a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). To test the assumption of a single latent factor, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using the AMOS-package (Arbuckle, 2006). With a maximum-likelihood estimation procedure, the following global fit indices of the perceived importance of self- efficacy were obtained: )8 = 489.70, df= 119, p < .001; NFI = .79; RFI (relative fit index) = .76; IFI (incremental fit index) = .83, TLI = .81, CFI = .83; RMSEA = .14; SRMR (standardized root mean residual) = .06. The one factor solution did not yield a good fit, thus was rejected. An alternative six-item model showed a good fit both for the US. data; 12 = 9.72, df= 9, p = .37; NFI = .98; RFI = .97; IFI = .99, TLI = .99, CFI = .99; RMSEA = .02; SRMR = .02, and for the Korea data, x2 = 15.49, df= 9, p = .08; NFI = .96; RFI = .93; IF I = .98, TLI = .97, CF I = .98; RMSEA = .06; SRMR = .03. The reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) were .89 for the US. data and .80 for the Korean data. Perceived importance of outcome expectations. The perceived importance of outcome expectations was assessed with a revised version of Lent et al.’s (2005) outcome expectations scale. The 10-item scale reflected three dimensions identified by Bandura (1986): three items for physical rewards, three items for social rewards, and four items for self-evaluative outcomes. Participants were asked to indicate how strongly they perceived the importance of outcome expectations in choosing their future career, using a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). 17 Lent et a1. (2005) treated the outcome expectation scale as unidimensional, however, the modified scale used in the current study did not show a good fit (x2 = 373.53, df= 35,p < .001; NFI = .59; RFI = .48, IFI = .62, TLI = .50, CFI = .61; RMSEA = .24; SRMR = .17). Conceptually, the scale assesses three different aspects of outcome expectation: physical rewards, social rewards, and self-evaluative outcomes. A three- factor model was tested by performing a confirmatory factor analysis and the following global fit indices of the perceived importance of outcome expectations were obtained: 76' = 118.02, df= 32,p < .001; NFI = .87; RFI = .83; IFI = .91; TLI = .87; CF] = .91; RMSEA = .12; SRMR = .07. The three-factor model was rejected; nevertheless, the global fit indices were more acceptable than those of the unidimensional model. The internal consistency theorem (Hunter & Gerbing, 1982) was employed to test parallelism between factors. The social reward dimension was not parallel with the physical reward dimension (x2 = 17.04, df= 2, p < .01) or the self-evaluative outcome dimension ()8 = 13.13, df= 2, p < .01). When eliminating the social reward dimension, a two factor model showed an acceptable fit for the us. data, x2 = 38.11, df= 13, p < .001; NFI = .94; RFI = .91; IFI = .96; TLI = .94; CFI = .96; RMSEA = .11; SRMR = .04, and for the Korean data, )8 = 32.23, df= l3,p < .001; NFI = .94;RF1= .90; IFI = .96; TLI = .94; CFI = .96; RMSEA = .08; SRMR = .07. For the physical reward dimension, the reliabilities were .91 for the US. data and .83 for the Korean data. For the self-evaluative outcome dimension, the reliabilities were .84 and .71, respectively. The correlation between physical rewards and the self-evaluative outcome dimension was r = .20, p < .001. Forced choice question. The questionnaire included a two-alternative forced question that asked participants to indicate which one between self-efficacy and outcome 18 expectations participants considered more important. The question was provided in the case that participants rated both self-efficacy and outcome expectations as extremely important in the previous questions (i.e., ceiling effect). Perceived support. Unidimensionality was tested for the nine-item scale. The one- factor model did not show an acceptable fit, )6 = 202.13, df= 27, p < .001; NFI = .86; RFI = .77; IFI = .88; TLI = .80; CFI = .88; RMSEA = .13. An alternative five-item scale showed a good fit for the us. data, x2 = 3.83, df= 5, p = . 57; NFI = .99; RFI = .97; IFI = .99; TLI = .99; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .01, and for the Korean data, )8 = 6.71, df= 5,p = .24; NFI = .98; RFI = .94; IFI = .99; TLI = .98; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .04. The reliabilities were .86 for the US. data and .79 for the Korean data. Perceived barriers. A one-factor solution was tested for the five-item scale. The model showed an acceptable fit for the US. data, x2 = 21.86, df= 5, p = .001; NFI = .96; RFI = .89; IFI = .97; TLI = .91; CFI = .97; RMSEA = .14.and for the Korean data, )8 = 15.42, df= 5,p = .01; NFI = .96; RFI = .89; IFI = .97; TLI = .92; CFI = .97; RMSEA = .09. The reliabilities for the US. and the Korean data were .91 and .77, respectively. Pragmatic self. A one-factor solution was tested for the four-item scale. The model showed an acceptable fit for the US. data, x2 = 5.29, df= 2, p = .07; NF 1 = .93; IFI = .95; CFI = .95; RMSEA = .10, and for the Korean data. 12 = 6.04, df= 2,p = .05; NFI = .98; RFI = .88; IFI = .98; TLI = .92; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .09. Reliabilities for the US. and the Korean data were .61 and .78, respectively. Idealistic self Unidimensionality was tested for the four-item scale. The one- factor model showed an acceptable fit for the US. data, )8 = 4.02, df= 2, p = .13; NFI = .98; RFI = .90; IFI = .99; TLI = .95 ; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .08, and for the Korean data, 19 x2 = 14.16, df= 2,p = .001; NFI = .92; IFI = .93; CFI = .93; RMSEA = .16. Reliabilities for the US. and the Korean data were .82 and .72, respectively. 20 RESULTS The hypothesis predicted that temporal distance would be correlated negatively with the perceived importance of self-efficacy and positively with the perceived importance of outcome expectations. The moderating effects of perceived support and barriers as well as pragmatic versus idealistic selves were examined. Hierarchical regression analyses were used to examine the main effects, the two-way interactions, and the three-way interactions of predictors. Table 1 indicates reliabilities, zero-order correlations, means, and standard deviations. The predictors were centered to the mean in order to prevent nonessential multicollinearity problems and to facilitate interpretation (e. g., Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Six main predictors (country: U.S. = 0, Korea = 1, temporal distance, pragmatic self, idealistic self, perceived support, and perceived barriers) were included in the first block. The product terms such as temporal distance x perceived support were entered to the second block to examine the two-way interactions involving temporal distance or country. Finally, the product terms such as temporal distance X perceived support >< idealistic self were entered to the third block to examine the three-way interactions involving both temporal distance and country. The predictors had condition indexes ranging from 1.00 to 7.97, indicating no serious threat concerning multicollinearity. 21 Table 1. Correlation Matrix of Variables Physical Self- C TD PR ID SP BR SE Reward Evaluative Country 1.000 TD -.12" 1.00 (384) PR .16" -.07 .73 (394) (384) ID -.09 .07 .12" .75 (394) (384) (394) SP -.21‘" .01 .14" .43‘" .82 (394) (384) (394) (394) BR -.23”"' .11“ .01 -.07 -.28"* .85 (394) (384) (394) (394) (394) Self- -.19”‘ .09 .21" 39*" 39“" -.12" .84 Efficacy (394) (384) (394) (394) (394) (394) Physical -.06 .01 .42" -.07 .14" .01 .16" .86 Reward (394) (384) (394) (394) (394) (394) (394) Self- .04 .01 .12‘ .44’" 34"" -.15” .30‘" .20‘" .76 Evaluative (394) (384) (394) (394) (394) (394) (394) (394) M 0.58 33.10 5.28 5.34 5.58 2.84 5.81 5.56 6.26 SD 0.49 21.46 0.86 0.89 0.90 1.23 0.80 0.99 0.72 Note: C = country (0 = US, 1 = Korea); TD = temporal distance; PR = pragmatic self; ID = idealistic self; SP = perceived support; BR = perceived barriers; Self-Efficacy = perceived importance of self-efficacy; Physical reward = perceived importance of the physical reward dimension of outcome expectations, Self-evaluative = perceived importance of the self-evaluative outcome dimension of outcome expectations. ’p < .05, "p < .01, "‘p < .001 22 Self-Efficacy For the perceived importance of self-efficacy (Table 2), the model for the predictors in the first block was significant, F (6, 377) = 21.42, p < .001, R2 = .25, adjusted R2 = .24. However, temporal distance was not a statistically significant predictor, B = 0.003, B = .08,p = .08. Country (B = -0.27, B = -.17,p < .001) was a significant predictor, indicating that the US. participants perceived self-efficacy as more important than Korean participants did. Both pragmatic self (B = 0.17, B = .19, p < .001) and idealistic self (B = 0.23, B = .26, p < .001) were positive predictors of the perceived importance of self-efficacy. Perceived support (B = 0.16, B = .05, p = .001) was a positive predictor, while perceived barriers (B = -0.07, B = -.10, p = .04) was a negative predictor. Participants who expected to receive higher support in their career choice regarded self- efficacy as more important, whereas participants who expected to receive discouragement about their career perceived self-efficacy as less important. The model for the predictors (i.e., interaction terms) in the second block was significant, Fchange (9, 368) = 4.27, p < .001, chhange = .07. The two-way interaction effects of idealistic self and country (B = 0.22, B = .03, p = .02) and perceived support and country (B = -0.55, B = -.48, p < .001) were significant. The significant interactions indicated that the effect of idealistic self on the perceived importance of self-efficacy was stronger for Korean participants (B = 0.32, B = .36, p < .001) than the US. participants (B = 0.12, B = .13, p = .05) and that perceived support was significant for the US. participants (B = 0.52, B = .52, p < .001), but not for Korean participants (B = -.02, B = - .02, p = .80). The model for the third block was not significant, F change (4, 364) = 0.45, p = .77, chhange = .003, thus three-way interactions were not significant. 23 Table 2. Multiple Regression Analysis for the Perceived Importance of Self-Efficacy B SE B t sr First block c .027 0.08 -.17 344“" -.15 TD 0.003 0.002 .08 1.70 .08 pR 0.17 0.04 19 3.98’" .18 H) 0.23 0.05 26 5.24"" .23 Sp 0.16 0.05 18 3.28" .15 BR -007 0.03 -.10 -205“ -09 F (6, 377) = 21.42, p < .001, R2 = .25, adjusted R2 = .24 Second block TD 1.. c 0.001 0.004 .02 0.22 .01 m t c 0.03 0.10 .03 0.31 .01 ID at c 0.22 0.09 .19 2.44‘ .11 sp * c -055 0.10 -.48 -526‘" —.23 BR * c 0.01 0.07 .01 0.19 .01 TD .. pR 0.002 0.002 .05 1.10 .05 TD * 11) 0.003 0.002 .07 1.47 .06 TD .. SP 0001 0.002 -.02 -0.33 -.01 TD * BR 0.001 0.002 .03 0.66 .03 Fchange (9, 368) = 4.27, p < .001, chhange = .07 Third block TD * pR * c 0.005 0.005 .10 1.04 .05 TD * 1D .. c 0.001 0.004 .01 0.12 .01 TD * sp 1.. c -0.006 0.005 -.13 -121 -.05 TD * BR * c -0.001 0.003 -003 «0.46 -.02 Fchange (4, 364) = 0.45, p = .77, chhange = .003 Note: sr = semipartial correlation; C = country (0 = US, 1 = Korea); TD = temporal distance; PR = pragmatic self; ID = idealistic self; SP = perceived support; BR = perceived barriers p < .05, "p < .01, mp < .001 24 Physical Rewards For the perceived importance of the physical rewards (Table 3), the model for the predictors in the first block was significant, F (6, 377) = 21 .42, p < .001, R2 = .25, adjusted R2 = .24. Country (B = -0.24, B = -.12, p = .02) was a significant predictor. The US. participants regarded physical rewards as more important than Korean participants did. Pragmatic self (B = 0.51, B = .44, p < .001) was a positive predictor, while idealistic self (B = -0.22, B = -.19, p < .001) was a negative predictor. For participants who focused on practical considerations and maximizing self-interest, a physical reward was an important factor in choosing their future career. For participants who emphasized protecting their ideals and fulfilling their inner potential, a physical reward was a less important factor. Perceived support was a positive predictor (B = 0.17, B = .15, p = .01). Participants who received higher support in their career choice were more likely to regard physical rewards as important. The contribution of the predictors in the second block was significant in explainingthe variance in physical rewards, Fchange (9, 368) = 2.57, p = .007, chhange = .05. The two-way interaction effects of country and pragmatic self (B = 0.29, B = .20, p = .03), country and idealistic self (B = 0.25, B = .17, p = .04), and country and perceived support (B = —.034, B = -.24, p = .01) were significant. The effect of pragmatic self was stronger for Korean participants (B = 0.58, B = .52, p < .001) than for the US. participants (B = 0.28, B = .21, p = .02). Idealistic self was a significant and negative predictor for the US. participants (B = -0.30, B = -.28, p = .001), but not for Korean participants (B = -0.09, B = -.08, p = .24). Perceived support was significant only for the US. participants (B = 0.30, B = .28, p = .01), not for Korean participants (B = 0.07, B = 25 .06, p = .36). Physical rewards were important for the US. participants when they were not idealistic or when they expected to receive support about their career choice. However, none of the two-way interactions involving temporal distance were significant. The model for the third block was significant, F change (4, 364) = 3.68, p = .006, chhange = .03. The three-way interaction effect of temporal distance, perceived support, and country was significant, B = -0.02, B = -37, p = .001. For this interaction, simple regression analyses were conducted and statistical significance of unstandardized simple slopes was assessed (e. g., Aiken & West, 1991). The results showed a pattern of disordinal interaction (Table 4). As perceived support increased, the slope changed from negative to positive for the US. participants. In contrast, for Korean participants, the slope turned from positive to negative. The significant simple slopes showed that for the low level of perceived support (one or two standard deviations below the mean), temporal distance was negatively correlated with the perceived importance of physical rewards for the US. participants, whereas it was positively correlated with the perceived importance of physical rewards for Korean participants. In other words, the result of Korean participants with low perceived support was consistent with the hypothesis, while the results of the US. participants with low perceived support contradicted the hypothesis. For Korean participants with the high level of perceived support (two standard deviations above the mean), temporal distance was a negative predictor of the perceived importance. 26 Table 3. Multiple Regression Analysis for the Perceived Importance of Physical Rewards B SE B t sr First block C -024 0.10 -.12 -236“ -.11 TD 0.002 0.002 .04 0.85 .04 PR 0.51 0.05 .44 9.28‘" .42 ID 022 0.06 -.19 -384’" -.17 SP 0.17 0.06 .15 2.69" .12 BR 0.006 0.04 .01 0.15 .01 F(6, 377) = 18.15, p < .001, R2 = .22, adjusted R2 =21 Second block TD * c 0.007 0.005 .12 1.49 .07 PR * c 0.29 0.13 .20 2.21‘ .10 ID * C 0.25 0.12 .17 2.09’ .09 SP * c -0.34 0.14 -24 -2.53‘ -.11 BR * C -013 0.08 —.10 -1.59 -.07 TD * PR -0002 0.003 -.04 -0.79 —.04 TD * ID 0.003 0.003 .05 0.93 .04 TD * SP -0005 0.002 -.10 -1.94 -.09 TD * BR 0.003 0.002 .07 1.37 .06 Fchange (9, 368) = 2.57, p = .007, chhange = .05 Third block TD * PR * c -0001 0.006 -.01 -0.11 —.005 TD * ID * c 0.001 0.006 .02 0.19 .01 TD * SP * c -0020 0.006 -.37 -336" -.15 TD * BR * c -0004 0.004 -.07 -103 —.05 Fchange (4, 364) = 3.68, p = .006, chhange = .03 Note: sr = semipartial correlation; C = country (0 = US, l = Korea); TD = temporal distance; PR = pragmatic self; ID = idealistic self; SP = perceived support; BR = perceived barriers p < .05, "p < .01, ”*p < .001 27 Table 4. Summary of Unstandardized Simple Slopes Simple Slopes at the Different Points of Moderator 1 Moderator Moderator 2 SD 1 SD M 1 SD 2 SD Criterion Predictor 1 2 Below Below Above Above S -0.024 -0.015 -0.006 0.003 0.012 Physical Temporal Perceived p=.04 p=.05 p=.17 p=.53 p=.17 Country Rewards Distance Support Kor 0.021 0.012 0.003 -0.006 -0.015 p<.01p<.01p=.31p=.16 p=.02 Self-Evaluative Outcomes For the perceived importance of self-evaluative dimension of outcomes (Table 5), the model for the predictors in the first block of variables was significant, F (6, 377) = 19.71, p < .001, R2 = .24, adjusted R2 = .23. Temporal distance was not a statistically significant predictor, B < 0.001, B = -.002, p = 97. Idealistic self (B = 0.28, B = .35, p < .001) and perceived support (B = 0.17, B = .21, p < .001) were significant predictors of the perceived importance of self-evaluative outcomes. The predictors in the second block (Fchange [9, 368] = 1.49, p = .15, chhange = .03) and in the third block (Fchange [4, 364] = 0.93, p = .45, chhange = .007) were not significant. 28 Table 5. Multiple Regression Analysis for the Perceived Importance of Self-Evaluative Outcomes B SE B t sr First block c 0.13 0.07 .09 1.76 .08 TD 0.00 0.00 .00 -0.04 .00 FR 0.03 0.04 .04 0.76 .03 m 0.28 0.04 .34 6.89"" .31 Sp 0.17 0.04 .21 382"“ .17 BR -0030 0.029 -.05 -1.02 -.05 F (6, 377) = 19.71, p < 001,1?2 = .24, adjusted R2 = .23 Second block TD * c 0.001 0.003 .03 0.37 .02 PR :1: c 0.07 0.10 .07 0.71 .03 ID 1.. c 0.11 0.09 .10 1.25 .06 SP t c -004 0.10 -04 -0.42 -.02 BR * c -0.15 0.06 -.16 -250 -.11 TD * m 0.003 0.002 .07 1.49 .07 TD * 11) 0.001 0.002 .03 0.59 .03 TD * SP 0001 0.002 -.04 0.79 -.04 TD * BR 0.001 0.001 .02 0.43 .02 Fchange (9, 368) = 1.49, p = .15, chhange = .03 Third block TD .. pR * c 0.002 0.005 .05 0.46 .02 TD * ID * c -0.007 0.004 -.14 -1.60 -.07 TD * sp * c 0.003 0.004 .08 0.75 .03 TD :1: BR :1: C -0.002 0.003 -.05 ~0.66 -.03 Fchang (4, 364) = 0.93, p = .45, chhange = .007 Note: sr = semipartial correlation; C = country (0 = US, 1 = Korea); TD = temporal distance; PR = pragmatic self; ID = idealistic self; SP = perceived support; BR = perceivedkarriers m p < .05, p < .01, p < .001 29 Forced Choice Question Using a two-altemative forced choice question as a dependent variable, a logistic regression was conducted to examine the effect of temporal distance. The result was significant neither for the US. data, B (unstandardized coefficient) < .001, SE = .008, x2 (1, N = 166) < .001,p = .99, Nagelkerke R2 < .001, nor for the Korean data, B = .003, SE = .006, x2 (1, N = 228) < .001, p = .60, Nagelkerke R2 = .002. Thus, the data were inconsistent with the hypothesis. Pattern of Relationship To examine the pattern of the relationship between temporal distance and social cognitive variables, a curve fit estimation tested three types of relationships: linear, exponential, and hyperbolic. To test a hyperbolic function, temporal distance was 1 1 +ItD transformed using a general hyperbolic time-discounting formula, f (D) = (Ainslie & Haslam, 1992; Hesketh et al., 1998). The parameter k that indicates the degree of discounting was considered as an arbitrary number 1 in the current study. In terms of the relationship between temporal distance and self-efficacy, the US. data were not significant for linear, F (1, 164) = 1.66, p = .20, exponential, F (1, 164) = 1.32, p = .25, and hyperbolic function, F (1, 164) = 2.94, p = .09. For the Korean data, the results were not significant for linear, F (1, 213) = 0.17, p = .68, exponential, F (1, 213) = 0.03,p = .85, and hyperbolic function, F (1 , 213) = 0.06,p = .81. Regarding the relationship between temporal distance and physical rewards, the US. data were not significant for linear, F (1, 164) = 0.42, p = .52, exponential, F (1, 164) = 0.92, p = .34, and hyperbolic function, F (1, 164) = 0.70, p = .40. For the Korean 30 data, the results were not significant for linear, F (1 , 213) = 0.20, p = .66, exponential, F (1, 213) = 0.50,p = .48, and hyperbolic function, F (1, 213) = 0.01,p = .92. Finally, regarding the relationship between temporal distance and the self- evaluative outcome dimension of outcome expectations, US. data were not significant for linear, F (1, 164) = 0.13, p = .72, exponential, F (1, 164) = 0.02,p = .89, and hyperbolic function, F (1 , 164) = 0.21, p = .65. For the Korean data, the results were not significant for linear, F (l, 213) = 0.01,p = .94, exponential, F (1, 213) = 0.01,p = .93, and hyperbolic function, F (1 , 213) = 0.003, p = .96. In conclusion, temporal distance and social cognitive variables did not show any significant relationship. 31 DISCUSSION The current study examined the effect of temporal distance on college students’ perceived importance of self-efficacy and outcome expectations in choosing their future career. The results showed that neither the first-order nor the second-order effects of temporal distance to career entry was associated with the perceived importance of self- efficacy or outcome expectations. The three-way interaction of temporal distance, perceived support and country on the perceived importance of physical rewards was significant. For Korean participants with a low level of perceived support, temporal distance was a positive predictor of the perceived importance of physical rewards, which was consistent with the hypothesis. In contrast, temporal distance was a negative predictor of the perceived importance of physical rewards for the US. participants with a low level of perceived support or for Korean participants with a high level of perceived support, which was contrary to the hypothesis. It is possible that college students in a combination of unfavorable circumstances (i.e., lack of career-related support and serious economic recession in Korea), physical rewards may be a less important consideration if they are about to start their career. If they have enough time before starting their career, physical rewards may become a more important consideration. In contrast, if participants perceive a high level of support or live in the United States, where economic recession is less severe than in Korea, then physical rewards may become more important as the time of career entry approaches. CLT posits that the temporal distance decreases the effect of feasibility and increases the effect of desirability (Liberman & Trope, 1998; Sagristano et al., 2002). 32 However, results of the current study indicated that the perceived importance of self- efficacy (i.e., feasibility considerations) and outcome expectations (i.e., desirability considerations) did not change as a function of time, except under the moderation effects of perceived support and country. Several possibilities can be considered in explaining the results. First, it is possible that occupational self-efficacy did not correspond perfectly with the concept of feasibility considerations defined in CLT. Previous studies of CLT conceptually defined feasibility as the ease or difficulty in reaching the end-state (Liberman & Trope, 1998). In the experiments, the feasibility condition was operationally defined as the ease of use (Fujita et al., 2008), ease of performance (Perugini & Bagozzi, 2004), convenience of location, amount of cost, difficulty of assignments (Liberman & Trope, 1998), or probability of winning (Sagristano et al., 2002). These difficulties arise from external factors, which can be overcome by exerting additional effort or by expending extra costs. On the contrary, self-efficacy is conceptually defined as people’s judgment of their own capabilities (Bandura, 1986). The lack of self-efficacy arises from an individual’s internal factors (e. g., career indecision, the lack of competence, inability to handle unexpected problems), thus it may be hard to overcome. In this case, self- efficacy may not be in a trade-off relationship with outcome expectations. Moreover, it is possible that occupational self-efficacy did not match low-level construals. In CLT, feasibility considerations are considered as low-level construals that represent specific and contextualized ease or difficulty in attaining a goal. In contrast, the items in the occupational self-efficacy scale measured a participant’s general confidence and coping efficacy. It might be difficult and abstract for participants to imagine their 33 future career situations. Self-efficacy may be perceived as abstract and may not be connected with low-level construals. Additionally, it is possible that the relationship between career choice and desirability was not clear and direct. In the previous studies of CLT, participants were able to receive the rewards of their choice behavior immediately (e.g., payoff in gambling). However, for the career-related outcomes, a reward from career choice may not be immediate, making it difficult for participants to predict the outcome of their future career. Moreover, desirability may be influenced by not only by career choice but also by many other factors such as job performance or seniority. The current study examined the participants’ perception regarding their future career, not their actual career choice behavior. Because participants had different majors and different plans for their future career, it was impossible to measure their actual level of self-efficacy and outcome expectations. Instead, the current study measured the perceived importance of self-efficacy and outcome expectations. A discrepancy may exist between their actual career choice behavior and their perception of future career. In addition, since the questionnaire asked participants’ perceived importance of self-efficacy and outcome expectations, instead of their actual level of self-efficacy and outcome expectations, the ceiling effects were substantial. Although the hypothesis of the current study was not supported, the results suggested important interaction effects of moderating variables. Country, perceived support and barriers, and pragmatic versus idealistic selves may be important mediators in explaining career choice of college students. In terms of perceived support and barriers, participants who expected to receive higher support in their career choice 34 regarded self-efficacy and outcome expectations as more important, whereas participants who expected to receive discouragement about their career perceived self-efficacy and outcome expectations as less important. Considering that strong sense of self-efficacy and positive outcome expectations facilitate clear goal setting and goal-oriented behaviors, as well as performance attainment and persistence, perceived support may be an important factor in career choice behavior. Pragmatic self was a positive predictor of the perceived importance of physical rewards, while idealistic self was a negative predictor. This result is consistent with a tension between idealism and pragmatism prevalent in career behavior (Kivet & Tyler, 2007). Physical rewards may be more important for job applicants with pragmatic concerns and less important for those who place principles and values above practical considerations. It is interesting that both pragmatic self and idealistic self were significant predictors of the perceived importance of self-evaluative outcomes. It is possible that high level of self-consideration, regardless of whether it is pragmatic or idealistic, may increase the perceived importance of self-evaluation. The current study collected data from two countries (United States and Korea), and country was a significant predictor of the perceived self-efficacy and outcome expectations in many cases. For example, the US. participants perceived self-efficacy and physical rewards as more important than Korean participants did. It is possible to speculate that the difference may come from the distinction between individualistic cultures and collectivistic cultures (Hofstede, 1980). Individualistic cultures emphasize an individual’s achievement through their own efforts, while collectivistic cultures value an individual’s interdependence and harmony. The US. participants may be more likely to think that their own ability is more important for their career success than any other 35 factor. At the same time, the US. participants may be more likely to regard financial benefits as a reward for their occupational achievement. However, the effect of culture Should be interpreted carefully since culture was confounded with other factors. In terms of academic major, nearly half of the US. participants were communication-related majors, while a large proportion of Korean participants were business majors. In terms of job experience, 95% of the US. participants had job experience and 80% were currently employed. Among Korean participants, only 35% had any kind of job experience and ,1 17% were currently employed. In addition, the different economic situations in the United States and Korea may contribute to different job perspectives of the US. and the Korean participants. As the factors such as academic major, job experience, currently employment status, and economic situations were systematically changed between two countries, their effects were difficult to be isolated from the effect of cultural differences. Future studies are needed to examine the effect of cultural differences on college students’ career choice behavior. The results of the current study showed no significant patterns of linear, exponential, and hyperbolic functions. Nonetheless, the relationship pattern needs to be investigated in future studies. Many time-discounting or time-augmentation theories expect exponential or hyperbolic functions, however, most studies in CLT literature have tested only two time points (i.e., near future versus distant future), and have been unable to examine whether the pattern is linear, exponential, or hyperbolic. Pennington and Roese (2003) exceptionally categorized temporal distance into multiple time points; however, the pattern was not clear: prospective temporal increase from the present into the firture revealed a reliable linear effect, whereas retrospective temporal increase from 36 the present into the past failed to show a stable linear pattern. Therefore, the pattern of relationship remains an open question (Henderson, Trope, & Carnevale, 2006) and needs further investigation. 37 CONCLUSION Organizations invest a large amount of resources to recruit the most competent job candidates. From the perspective of organizational communication, it is necessary to understand what potential job candidates consider important in choosing their future career. At the same time, from the perspective of career counseling, it is important to understand college students’ perceptions regarding their future career. Based on these considerations, the current study examined the effect of temporal distance on feasibility (i.e., self-efficacy) and desirability (i.e., outcome expectations) considerations in career choice. Although the data were generally inconsistent with the hypothesis, the effort to examine the impact of time perspective on career behavior needs to be continued, as time is an unexamined but potentially important factor in career choice. 38 APPENDIX Research Participant Information and Consent Form You are being asked to participate in a research project. Researchers are required to provide a consent form to inform you about the study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to explain risks and benefits of participation, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to ask the researchers any questions you may have. STUDY TITLE: Career Choice Study Researchers: Hee Sun Park (Associate Professor) and Seungcheol Austin Lee (MA Student) Department and Institution: Department of Communication, Michigan State University Address and Contact Information: Dr. Hee Sun Park (phone: 517-355-3480; office: 481 CAS; email: heesun@msu.edu) or Seungcheol Austin Lee (email: austiny@msu.edu) PURPOSE OF RESEARCH: You are being asked to participate in a study of Communication. From this study, the researchers hope to learn what people think about various factors relevant to jobs and careers. You will be asked to provide your opinions and preferences on various issues on jobs and careers. If you choose to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete a questionnaire asking your values as well as demographic information. Your participation in this study will take about 15 to 30 minutes. If your instructor agreed to provide you with credit for your participation, you will earn 0.25 hour of credit or 0.5 hour of credit in your course, depending on your instructor's policy. For any reason you do not want to participate in the current study, there will be an alternative opportunity for an equal amount of extra credit that will require equal amount of effort. If you do not wish to participate in research studies, please consult your instructor for information on an alternate assignment to receive the same amount of credit. You must be 18 years old or older to participate in this study. Your instructor will be informed of your research participation and s/he will see that you receive credit in your course. WHAT YOU WILL DO: If you choose to participate in this study, you will be given survey questions to answer. You will be asked to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the questions. POTENTIAL BENEFITS: While this study is not expected to yield any immediate direct to the individual participants, the knowledge generated from this project will add to the body of Communication research findings and is hoped to increase the understanding of communication processes in general. 39 POTENTIAL RISKS: There are no foreseeable risks associated with participation in this study. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY: The data for this project are being collected anonymously. Neither the researchers nor anyone else will be able to link data to you. Information about you will be kept confidential to the maximum extent allowable by law unless there is a danger to yourself or others. All materials will be kept under lock and key. Only the two researchers and the Institutional Review Board will have access to the data. The results of this study may be published or presented at professional meetings, but the identities of all research participants will remain anonymous. YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW: Participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You have the right to say no. You may change your mind at any time and withdraw. You may choose not to . answer Specific questions or to stop participating at any time. Whether you choose to t 5 participate or not will have no affect on your grade or evaluation. A COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY: Procedures being performed for research purposes only will be provided free of charge by the researcher. You will not receive money or any other form of compensation for participating in this study. CONTACT INFORMATION FOR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS RESEARCHER CONTACT INFORMATION If you have any questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to report an injury, please contact Dr. Hee Sun Park (phone: 517-355- 3480; office: 481 CAS; email: heesun@msu.edu) or Seungcheol Austin Lee (email: austiny@msu.edu). IRB CONTACT INFORMATION If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University's Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432- 4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 202 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824. 40 DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT Your signature (or initials) below means that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study. Sign here or put your initials here as electronic signature if you are participating in online survey Date ‘. If you are participating in online survey and you would like to keep a copy of this ' consent form, please print this page for your record. 41 Questionnaire 1. Please indicate your current academic status: __ Freshman __ Sophomore __ Junior __ Senior 5th Year senior or above 2. When do you expect to graduate? In (semester), (year) 3. When do you expect to start your long-term career? _ Already started ( year(s) and month(s) ago) _ Before graduation ( year(s) and month(s) before graduation) _ At the time of graduation _ After graduation ( year(s) and month(s) after graduation) [Self-Efficacy] 4. The following questions are asking your general ideas about your future career. Imagine you are trying to get a full-time job at the time you indicated previously and maintain employment for a relatively long period of time (e.g., 1 year or more). Please indicate the extent of how important you think the following statements are. No. Item Completely Neutral Extremely unrmportant 1mportant Makrng plans concemrng my occupatronal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 future 2 Settrng goals 1n my career that I can 1 2 3 4 5 6 .7 achreve 3 Handlrng unexpected problems that occur 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 in my work* Being able to avoid learning new things in 4 my job when they look too difficult for me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (R) 42 Trying harder when something doesn’t 5 . . . . work in my job 1mmed1ately* 6 Being secure about my professional abilities 7 Being self-reliant as far as my job is concerned 8 Being able to give up easily when something doesn’t work well (R) 9 Being capable of dealing with most problems that come up in my job* 10 Managing to solve difficult problems in my job 11 Handling unforeseen situations in my job* 12 Having a back-up plan when I am in trouble at my work 13 Remaining calm when facing difficulties in my job* 14 Finding several solutions when I am confronted with a problem in my job 1 5 Dealing efficiently with unexpected events in my job“ 1 6 Being able to handle my job no matter what comes my way 17 Being prepared for my occupational future is important for me 18 Meeting the goals that I set for myself in my job Being prepared to meet most of the 19 . demands of my job (R) Recoded items * Items used in the analysis 43 [Outcome Expectations] 5. The following questions are asking your general ideas about your future career. Imagine you are trying to get a full-time job at the time you indicated previously and maintain employment for a relatively long period of time (e.g., 1 year or more). Please indicate the extent of how important you think the following statements are. Completely Extremely No. Item unimportant Neutral important 1 Earning an attractive salary* 1 2 6 7 2 Receiving generous benefits* 1 2 6 7 3 Going into a field with high monetary 1 2 6 1.. 7 rewards 4 Getting respect from other people 1 2 6 7 5 Having a career that rs valued by my 1 2 6 7 family Doing work that can make a difference in 6 , . 1 2 6 7 people S lrves 7 Doing work that I find satisfyingM 1 2 6 7 8 Increasing my sense of self-worth” 1 2 6 7 9 Doing exciting work” 1 2 6 7 Having the right type and amount of 10 contact - l 2 6 7 with other people" * Items used in the analysis for the physical reward dimension ** Items used in the analysis for the self-evaluative outcome dimension 44 [Forced Choice Question] 6. When making a job or career choice at the time you indicated previously, which of the following will you consider more important? Please choose only one of the two options provided below. Put a check mark next to your choice of the two options. Getting a job in which I can earn generous salary, respect, and satisfying fulfillment. Getting a job which I can do well with the skills that I will have [Pragmatic Self vs. Idealistic Self] 7. Please think about yourself at the time you indicated previously and indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. Strongly Neutral Strongly No. Item . drsagree agree Mostly guided by practrcal consrderatrons” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 would best descr1be me. 2 Standing. up for my ideal beliefs” would 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 best describe me. 3 . Makrng dec1srons that maxrmrze my self- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1nterest” would best descrrbe me. 4 Contrrbutmg to my communrty” would 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 best describe me. 5 Focusing on financral issues” would best 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 descrrbe me. 6 Fulfilling my inner potential” would best 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 describe me. “Paying attention to pragmatic constraints 7 on what I need to do” would best describe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 me. “Putting my values and principles above all 8 other considerations” would best describe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 me. Items 1, 3, 5, and 7: pragmatic self Items 2, 4, 6, and 8: idealistic self 45 [Perceived Support] 8. If you were to select the career you want at the time you start your career, how likely would you be to... Not at all Extremely No. Item Likely Neutral likely Have access to a “role model” in this field 1 (i.e., someone you can look up to and learn 1 2 3 4 6 7 from by observing)? Feel support for this decision from 2 important people in your life (e.g., 1 2 3 4 6 7 teachers)?* 3 Feel that there are people lrke you 1n thrs 1 2 3 4 6 7 field?* Get helpful assistance from a mentor, if you 4 felt you needed such help? 1 2 3 4 6 7 5 Get encouragement from your frrends for l 2 3 4 6 7 pursurng thrs career?* 6 Get helpful assistance from your advisor? 1 2 3 4 6 7 7 F eel that your famrly members support thrs 1 2 3 4 6 7 decrsron? 8 Feel that close friends or relatives would be 1 2 3 4 6 7 proud of you for making this decision?* 9 Have access to a mentor who could offer 1 2 3 4 6 7 you advice and encouragement?* * Items used in the analysis 46 [Perceived Barriers] 9. If you were to select the career you want at the time you start your career, how likely would you be to... Not at all Extremely No. Item Likely Neutral likely Receive negative comments or 10 discouragement about your career from 1 2 3 4 6 7 family members?* Worry that such a career path would require 11 . . 1 2 3 4 6 7 too much time or schoolrng?* 12 Feel that you don t fit 1n socrally wrth other 1 2 3 4 6 7 students 1n thrs career?"‘ Receive negative comments or 13 discouragement about your career from 1 2 3 4 6 7 your friends?* Feel pressure from parents or other 14 important people to change your career to l 2 3 4 6 7 some other profession?* * Items used in the analysis 10. Please describe in detail what you future career will be like. 47 The following questions are about general information about you. You may Skip any questions that are not relevant to you. 1. 2. Your age: Your gender: __ Male _ Female Your citizenship US. citizen International (permanent resident) International (non-permanent resident) Your ethnicity (check one): __ Caucasian __ Hispanic _ African American _ Pacific Islander __ Native American __ Mixed (please specify) _ Asian American __ Other (please specify) Your major: Have you had an internship before? _ Yes _ No If so, how many internships have you had? Please indicate the total length of intemship(s) year(s) month(s) Have you ever been employed? (either full time or part time) __ Yes No If so, how many jobs have you had? Please indicate the total length of employment year(s) month(s) Are you currently employed? _ Yes _ No How many hours do you work per week? hours per week How long have you been working for the current employer? _ year(s) _ month(s) Please indicate your job title (e. g., sales representative, manager, etc) 48 How would you describe your current job? El Administration/Support El Management/Business/Finance El Agriculture/Horticulture El Manufacture/Production Operation Cl Architecture/Construction Cl Public Service/Military Cl Art/Design/Fashion D Sales/Retailing/Marketing El Education/Publishing El Science/Engineering/Computer El Food/Hospitality Service El Social Service El Journalism/Media/Advertisement Cl Sports/Entertainment Cl Legal/Law Enforcement El Transportation/Travel 13 other (please specify ) 9. Are you currently looking for a job? _ Yes _ No If so, please indicate the type of employment _ Full time __ Part time How long have you been looking for a job? __ year(s) __ month(s) Please indicate the name of job you are looking for. 10. How would you describe your firture job? El DUDDDUDD Administration/ Support Agriculture/Horticulture Architecture/ Construction Art/Design/Fashion Education/Publishing Food/Hospitality Service Journalism/Media/Advertisement Legal/Law Enforcement other (please specify ) DDDDDDDD Management/Business/Finance Manufacture/Production Operation Public Service/Military Sales/Retailing/Marketing Science/Engineering/Computer Social Service Sports/Entertainment Transportation/Travel Thank you for participating in this study. 49 REFERENCES Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ainslie, G., & Haslam, N. (1992). Hyperbolic discounting. In G. Loewenstein & J. Elster (Eds), Choice over time (pp. 57—92). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos (Version 7.0) [Computer Program]. Chicago: SPSS. Arthur, M. B., Hall, D. T., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Generating new directions in career theory: The case for a transdisciplinary approach. In M. B. Arthur (Ed.). Handbook of career theory (pp. 7—25). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Antony, J. S. (1998). Personality-career fit and freshman medical career aspirations: A test of Holland’s theory. Research in Higher Education, 39, 679-698. Astin, A. (1977). Four critical years: Eflects of college on beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Balliet, D. P. (2007). A matter of time: Does the impact of social value orientation and self-efficacy on contributions to public goods depend on the temporal framing of the dilemma? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-21 5. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184. Bandura, A. (1995). On rectifying conceptual ecumenism. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self- eflicacy, adaptation, and adjustment (pp. 357-3 75). New York: Plenum. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-eflicacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bandura, A., & Adams, N. E. (1977). Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral change. Cognitive Therapy and Research, I , 287-310. 50 Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206- 1222. Betz, N. E. (2008). Advances in vocational theories. In S. D. Brown, & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 357-3 74). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations to perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 399—410. Betz, N. E., & Voyten, K. K. (1997). Efficacy and outcome expectations influence career exploration and decidedness. Career Development Quarterly, 46, 179-189. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 821—832. Cohen, J ., Cohen, R, West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: LEA. Dey, E. L., Astin, A. W., & Korn, W. S. (1991). The American Freshman: T wenty-five Year Trends. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California. Eden, D., & Kinnar, J. (1991). Modeling Galatea: Boosting self-efficacy to increase volunteering. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 770—780. Fouad, N. A., & Smith, P. L. (1996). A test of a social cognitive model for middle school students: Math and science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 338—346. Fujita, K., Eyal, T., Chaiken, S., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). Influencing attitudes toward near and distant objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 562-572. Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 326—336. Hackett, G., Betz, N. E., Casas, J. M., & Rocha-Singh, I. A. (1992). Gender, ethnicity, and social cognitive factors predicting the academic achievement of students in engineering. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 527—538. Henderson, M. D., Trope, Y., & Carnevale, P. J. (2006). Negotiation from a near and distant time perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 712- 729. 51 Hesketh, B. (2000). Time perspective in career-related choices: Application of time- discounting principles. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 5 7, 62-84. Hesketh, B., Watson-Brown, C., & Whiteley, S. (1998). Time-related discounting of value and decision-making about job options. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 89—105. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture ’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hunter, J ., & Gerbing, D. (1982). Unidimensional measurement, second order factor analysis, and causal models. Research in Organizational Behavior, 4, 267-320. Kelly, J. J ., & White, E. R. (1986). Profiling freshman academic characteristics. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, Division of Undergraduate Studies. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 284 458.) Kivet, Y., & Tyler, T. R. (2007). Tomorrow I’ll be me: The effect of time perspective on the activation of idealistic versus pragmatic selves. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 193-211. Krueger, N. F. (2000). The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity emergence. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 25, 5-23. Krueger, N. F., & Dickson, P. R. (1994). How believing in ourselves increases risk taking: Perceived self-efficacy and opportunity recognition. Decision Sciences, 25 , 385-400. Lapan, R. T., Shaughnessy, P., & Boggs, K. (1996). Efficacy expectations and vocational interests as mediators between sex and choice of math/science college majors: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 277—291. Lent, R. W., & Brown. S. D. (2006a). On conceptualizing and assessing social cognitive constructs in career research: A measurement guide. Journal of Career Assessment, I 4, 12-35. Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2006b). Integrating person and situation perspectives on work satisfaction: A social-cognitive view. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 236-247. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Brenner, B., Chopra, S. B., Davis, T., Talleyrand, R., et a1 (2001). The role of contextual supports and barriers in the choice of math/ science educational options: A test of social cognitive hypotheses. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 474—483. 52. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79-112. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B., Lyons, H., & Treistman, D. (2003). Relation of contextual supports and barriers to choice behavior in engineering majors: Test of alternative social cognitive models. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 458-465. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Sheu, H., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B. R., Gloster, C. S., et al. (2005). Social cognitive predictors of academic interests and goals in engineering: Utility for women and students at historically Black universities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 84—92. Lent, R. W., Sheu, H. B., Singley, D., Schmidt, J. A., Schmidt, L. C., & Gloster, C. S. (2008). Longitudinal relations of self-efficacy to outcome expectations, interests, and major choice goals in engineering students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 328-335. Liberman, N., & Sagristano, M. D., & Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 523- 534. Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5-18. Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2003). Construal level theory of intertemporal judgment and decision. In G. Lowenstein, D. Read, & R. Baumeister (Eds.), Time and decision: Economic and psychological perspectives on intertemporal choice (pp. 245-276). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Linan, F. M., Rodriguez-Cohard, J. C., Rueda-Cantuche, J. M. (2006). Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention levels. IX Encuentro de Economia Aplicada, 9, 1-18. Maddux, J. E. (1995). Self-efficacy theory: An introduction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self- eflicacy, adaptation, and adjustment (pp. 3-33). New York: Plenum. Martire, L. M., Schulz, R., Keefe, F. J ., Starz, T. W., & Osial, T. A., Dew, M. A., & Reynolds, C. F. (2003). Feasibility of a dyadic intervention for management of osteoarthritis: a pilot study with older patients and their spousal caregivers. Aging & Mental Health, 7, 53-60. Meyerson, J., Green, L., & F ristoe, N. (1995). Discounting of delayed rewards: Models of individual choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 64, 263-276. 53 Moss, M. K., & Frieze, I. H. (1993). Job preferences in the anticipatory socialization phase: comparison of two matching models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 282-297. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pennington, G. L., & Roese, N. J. (2003). Regulatory focus and temporal distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 563-576. Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2004). The distinction between desires and intentions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 69-84. Roelofsma, P. H. M. P. (1996). Modeling intertemporal choices: An anomaly approach. Acta Psychologica, 93, 5—22. Sagristano, M. D., & Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2002). Time-dependent gambling: Odds now, money later. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 131, 364—3 76. Schaefers, K. G., Epperson, D. L., & Nauta, M. M. (1997). Women’s career development: Can theoretically derived variables predict persistence in engineering majors? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 173—183. Schyns, B., & von Collani, G. (2002). A new occupational self-efficacy scale and its relation to personality constructs and organizational variables. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 219-241. Super, D. E. (1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1 6, 282-298. Super, D. E., Savickas, M. L., & Super, C. M. (1996). The life-span, life-space approach. In D. Brown & L. Brooks (Eds), Career choice and development (3rd ed., pp. 121—178). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Swanson, J. L., & Gore, P. A. (2000). Advances in vocational psychology theory and research. In S. D. Brown, & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology. New York: Wiley. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2000). Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in preference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 876-889. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403- 421. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. 54 Zunker, V. G. (2002). Career counseling: Applied concepts of life planning (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. 55 )lliiill 3063 3 70 l in] [11inle Ill!)