Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Career shocks can significantly impact individuals’ career development. We propose that how a career shock affects career development depends on how people appraise it. Specifically, our Career Shock Coping (CSC) model proposes that, dependent on personal characteristics, individuals differ in the extent to which they appraise career shocks as challenging and/or threatening. Challenge and threat appraisals inspire approach- and avoidance-oriented career behaviors, respectively, which differentially relate to career-related outcomes. A two-wave study was conducted among medical students (N = 279) in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic as a career shock. Supporting our CSC model, core self-evaluation (CSE) related negatively to threat appraisal and threat appraisal related positively to avoidance-oriented career behavior. Avoidance-oriented career behavior related positively to career decision-making stress. The relations between CSE, challenge appraisal, approach-oriented career behavior, and career decision-making stress were not significant. The findings have implications for career shocks research and career counseling practice.

Keywords

career shocks career decision-making COVID-19 pandemic career shock coping model challenge and threat appraisals

Introduction

In the final phase of their studies, students must make decisions about their future career. Their career decision-making process can be influenced by unexpected events—career shocks (Akkermans et al., 2018; Bright et al., 2005). Career shocks are disruptive or extraordinary events that are caused by factors beyond people’s control and trigger thoughts on their career (Akkermans et al., 2018). The COVID-19 pandemic is one such career shock that has been found to affect the career decision-making process of medical students (Byrnes et al., 2020; Cai et al., 2021). For example, the pandemic triggered reflection on career preferences and choices and caused concerns about the ability to make a deliberate career choice (Byrnes et al., 2020; Deng et al., 2021; Krier et al., 2022).

Making career choices can be accompanied by feelings of stress (career decision-making stress, that is, undesirable stress experienced during the career choice process; Fris et al., 2022; Kleine et al., 2021). This career decision-making stress is undesirable as it is associated with career indecision, higher negative affect, and lower psychological wellbeing (Arslan & Bayraktar-Uyar, 2020; Creed et al., 2016; Germeijs et al., 2006). Extant literature suggests that career shocks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, can result in positive (e.g., increased work engagement; Kraimer et al., 2019) as well as negative career-related outcomes (e.g., stress; Akkermans et al., 2018, 2020; Ragins et al., 2014). Whether career shocks lead to more or less favorable career-related outcomes might depend on the coping strategies used, as these vary in adaptiveness (Vukelić et al., 2021). Currently, we lack understanding of the cognitive processes that trigger the use of specific career shock coping strategies and their relationships with career decision-making stress. In addition, we lack knowledge of individual characteristics that are associated with (mal)adaptive coping with career shocks (Akkermans et al., 2018). This knowledge is critical to identify individuals vulnerable to adverse career shock consequences and to support them adequately.

To better understand how career shocks trigger specific coping strategies, we integrate Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent et al., 1994) with the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) to develop a Career Shock Coping model (CSC; Figure 1), which we apply to career decision-making stress. With this model, we propose that personal characteristics influence the extent to which individuals appraise a career shock as a challenge and/or threat. Challenge and threat appraisals are proposed to respectively promote approach- and avoidance-oriented career behaviors, which, in turn, are differentially associated with career-related outcomes. With the proposed CSC model, we aim to contribute to career theory by uncovering how contextual factors such as career shocks shape career development through appraisal and coping processes. Moreover, this model extends contemporary career self-management literature (Hirschi & Koen, 2021), which stresses the importance of proactive, approach-oriented career behaviors, by highlighting how career shocks affect avoidance-oriented career behaviors and career-related outcomes. This study contributes to practice by providing guidelines for appropriate career counseling of students facing a career shock.

Figure 1.

Career Shock Coping Model.

Development of a Career Shock Coping Model

Our Career Shock Coping model (see Figure 1) poses that the impact of career shocks on career-related outcomes depends on individuals’ appraisals of the career shock. Specifically, career shocks are factors outside people’s control that trigger thoughts on their career (Akkermans et al., 2018). Research has demonstrated that career shocks can significantly affect individuals’ career development. For example, career shocks can affect job and career cognitions (e.g., career optimism and perceived employability) and perceptions of self-efficacy (Ahmad & Nasir, 2021; Hofer et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2023). How career shocks affect individuals’ careers depends on an interplay between individual and contextual factors (Akkermans et al., 2020; Blokker et al., 2019). For example, it has been demonstrated that, for some people, negative career shocks can stimulate active career behaviors (Zhou et al., 2023). Others cope more maladaptively and do not take action to adapt to the new situation (Vukelić et al., 2021). Currently, we lack an understanding of the process through which career shocks affect individuals’ career behaviors and, subsequently, career outcomes. Therefore, we integrate Social Cognitive Career Theory with the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping into the Career Shock Coping model and propose that cognitive career shock appraisals (i.e., challenge and threat appraisals) affect career outcomes through stimulating specific coping responses (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lent et al., 1994, 2000).

In Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT; Lent et al., 1994, 2000; Lent & Brown, 2013) career shocks can be regarded contextual influences. SCCT generally categorizes contextual influences as contextual supports (e.g., social support) and contextual barriers (e.g., adverse labor market conditions; Lent & Brown, 2013). However, SCCT also acknowledges that the way contextual influences affect individuals’ careers depends on their perception of themselves and their environment (Lent et al., 2000). Therefore, whether a career shock is a support or barrier depends on an individual’s appraisal of this external event, which is proposed to impact subsequent career-related behaviors and outcomes (Akkermans et al., 2018; Lent et al., 1994, 2000).

The appraisal of external events can be further understood based on the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping (TMSC; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), which suggests that people appraise events that affect their interests and goals as more or less challenging and more or less threatening. When people face a career shock, they will evaluate its consequences for their career and available coping options. The more individuals see potential benefits of the career shock or feel capable of overcoming possible obstacles, the more they appraise it as a challenge. The more they believe the career shock will have negative consequences and see no way to prevent these, the more they appraise it as a threat.

Challenged individuals see reason to take action, believe that their actions will be effective, and are energized to cope with the situation (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Parker et al., 2010; Searle & Auton, 2015). Therefore, challenge appraisals foster approach-oriented coping responses (i.e., coping behavior oriented toward achieving a desired end state; Higgins et al., 1994; Moos et al., 1990; Roth & Cohen, 1986). Threatened individuals, in contrast, expect not to be able to cope effectively and to prevent negative outcomes. Therefore, threat appraisals foster avoidance-oriented coping responses (i.e., coping behavior oriented away from a threat; Fugate et al., 2012; Nicholls et al., 2012; Roth & Cohen, 1986).

Integrating TMSC with SCCT, we develop a Career Shock Coping (CSC) model proposing that career shock challenge appraisals instigate approach-oriented career behavior (i.e., active coping behavior aimed at solving career obstacles and realizing career goals and decisions) and career shock threat appraisals instigate avoidance-oriented career behavior (i.e., inactive coping behavior aimed at denying career obstacles and delaying career goal directed activities and decisions). In addition, building on TMSC, which suggests that approach and avoidance strategies differ in their adaptiveness (Lazarus, 2001; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), the CSC model proposes that approach- and avoidance-oriented career behaviors have positive and negative consequences for career-related outcomes, respectively.

Since, according to the TMSC and SCCT, the appraisal of events is central to people’s coping behavior and (health) outcomes, it is important to also consider its determinants. Research on individual differences in appraisal suggests that general personal characteristics predict how people appraise situations, irrespective of the nature of the particular events (Kuppens & Tong, 2010). For example, more neurotic individuals generally appraise events as more difficult to cope with (Gunthert et al., 1999). Extending this reasoning to the appraisal of career shocks, we propose in our CSC model that personal characteristics may influence the extent to which career shocks are appraised as challenging and/or threatening.

The Current Study

In the current study, we apply our CSC model to a specific career-related outcome, namely, career decision-making stress. Specifically, we investigate the development of career decision-making stress among medical students in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic as a career shock.

Personal Characteristics and Challenge and Threat Appraisals

Personal characteristics in our CSC model can reflect various individual traits and cognitions. In the present study, we focus on core self-evaluation (CSE), which is a broad and fundamental characteristic affecting people’s perception of the environment (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2009; Strauser et al., 2020). CSE reflects a basic evaluation of one’s worthiness, effectiveness, and capability as a person (Judge et al., 2003). CSE encompasses four underlying sub-traits: self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, neuroticism, and locus of control (Judge et al., 2003). Research demonstrates that CSE influences emotions, behavior, and cognitions, including appraisals of the external world (Chang et al., 2012; Judge et al., 1998). Therefore, we propose that CSE plays a central role in appraising a career shock (i.e., the COVID-19 pandemic) as challenging or threatening to one’s career. Individuals higher on CSE are more confident, self-efficacious, less neurotic, and feel more in control of their environment. Therefore, the higher students’ CSE the more capable they will feel to deal with the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic for their career, and thus the more they will appraise the pandemic as a challenge and the less they will appraise it as a threat.

Hypothesis 1: CSE relates (a) positively to a challenge appraisal of COVID-19 and (b) negatively to a threat appraisal of COVID-19.

Appraisals and Career Behavior

In our CSC model we pose that challenge and threat appraisals inspire distinct coping behaviors. Depending on the appraisal of career shocks, people engage in approach-oriented career behavior (e.g., networking, planning, career consultation, and proactive development) or avoidance-oriented career behavior (e.g., withdrawing from and ignoring career obstacles).

As challenged students believe they can change the situation, see reason to change the situation, and are energized to change the situation (Lazarus, 2001; Parker et al., 2010), they engage in approach-oriented coping (Hirschi et al., 2013; Moos et al., 1990; Searle & Auton, 2015). They actively alter the self and/or the environment (Green et al., 2010) to prevent negative and attain positive outcomes and so they engage in approach-oriented career behavior to cope with the career challenge. This behavior includes active behaviors such as networking (i.e., developing and maintaining relationships with others who can potentially assist in one’s work or career; Forret & Dougherty, 2004), planning (i.e., “setting career goals and thinking of strategies to achieve these goals”; Gould, 1979; Valls et al., 2020, p. 2), career consultation (i.e., discussing career development with others in the field of work; Claes & Ruiz-Quintanilla, 1998), and proactive skill development (i.e., “the acquisition of skills and knowledge required in the future”; Strauss et al., 2012, p. 3). These behaviors can be performed on-site or online (e.g., using video calling, online resources, and LinkedIn). Thus, challenged students feel resourceful and expect to be able to cope with the career shock, possibly with considerable effort. To prevent negative and attain positive consequences for their career decision-making, challenged students will engage in approach-oriented career behaviors, such as career planning, networking, consultation, and proactive development.

Hypothesis 2a: Challenge appraisals relate positively to approach-oriented career behavior.

In contrast to challenged individuals, threatened individuals are overwhelmed by feelings of fear and negative thoughts and emotions. To regulate these negative responses, they engage in avoidance-oriented coping behavior, like withdrawing, denying, or procrastinating reflections and actions (Doron & Martinent, 2017; Fugate et al., 2012; Nicholls et al., 2012; Peacock et al., 1993; Roth & Cohen, 1986).

We expect students to have similar avoidant responses to threat appraisals of career shocks. We propose that appraising the COVID-19 pandemic as a career threat is related to avoidance-oriented career behaviors, such as withdrawing, ignoring, and procrastinating. As threatened students perceive the COVID-19 pandemic as causing damage or difficulties to their career, they will show fear avoiding responses by withdrawing themselves when confronted with a setback (e.g., they will avoid discussing their career with others) and ignoring potential career obstacles (Kraaij & Garnefski, 2019). In addition, to regulate short-term affect, they will procrastinate career-related tasks as these tasks are associated with threat (Pychyl & Sirois, 2016; Tice & Baumeister, 1997; Tice et al., 2001).

Hypothesis 2b: Threat appraisals positively relate to avoidance-oriented career behavior.

Career Behavior and Career Decision-Making Stress

In our CSC model we propose that approach- and avoidance-oriented career behaviors are differentially related to career decision-making stress. Through approach-oriented career behaviors such as networking and career consultation, students will gain knowledge of career opportunities, and through proactive skill development they gain information about their strengths and interests. This information can be used to match potential career options. Finally, through career planning, which involves reflection on career preferences and wishes, students can give direction to their career, which links to positive career outcomes (e.g., career decidedness; Hirschi et al., 2015; career decision self-efficacy; Rogers et al., 2008).

Hypothesis 3a: Approach-oriented career behavior relates negatively to career decision-making stress.

Although avoidance-oriented coping behavior promotes short-term mood repair, it leads to elevated levels of stress in the long run (Beleaua & Cocoradă, 2016; Frydenberg & Lewis, 2009; Holahan et al., 2005; Tice & Baumeister, 1997). When the situation is not actively dealt with, the negative consequences of the threatening situation may increase, and therefore stress levels will increase as well. In addition, the use of avoidance-oriented coping strategies generates subsequent stressors (Holahan et al., 2005) as the individual does not adapt effectively to the changing environment. Students avoiding career-related actions and reflections will not obtain information about potential career options and how these align with their preferences, values, and interests, while this information is critical to preventing career indecision (Xu & Bhang, 2019). Procrastinating career exploration and decisions leads to increasing time pressure as the moment approaches when they must decide on their career, and such time pressure relates to increasing career decision-making stress (Fris et al., 2022).

Hypothesis 3b: Avoidance-oriented career behavior relates positively to career decision-making stress.

Appraisal, Career Behavior, and Decision-Making Stress

Our CSC model and hypotheses suggest indirect effects from appraisals to career decision-making stress via career behaviors. Specifically, we propose indirect relationships between challenge appraisal and career decision-making stress through approach-oriented career behavior and between threat appraisal and career decision-making stress through avoidance-oriented career behavior. We explore whether career behaviors fully or partially mediate the relations between appraisals and career decision-making stress. Lastly, we explore if CSE is indirectly related to career decision-making stress via appraisals and career behaviors.

Method

Study Context

The study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic among medical master’s students. Medical schools in The Netherlands consist of a three-year bachelor program and a three-year master’s program in which students do their clinical clerkships (clinical internships). Data collection took place from June 2021 (Time 1) to February 2022 (Time 2). The COVID-19 measures imposed by the Dutch government varied across the study period. At Time 1 and 2 there were minimal restrictions, but in between (December 2021) there was a national lockdown (e.g., bars and restaurants closed, ban on social events). Throughout the data collection period, however, the clinical clerkships took place on-site. Classes were online as well as on-site depending on the type of classes (e.g., teaching of practical clinical skills) and measures in place.

Procedure and Sample

We tested the hypotheses using a two-wave survey design. First, we received ethical approval from the institutional review board (IRB no. 2021-WOP-13139). Data collection started in June 2021. Medical master’s students from two Dutch medical schools (N = 2293) were invited to voluntarily participate in the study. They received an e-mail from their study coordinators containing a link to the first online survey (Time 1). Onto opening the link, students received an information letter, explaining the confidentiality of the data and their right to withdraw from the study. After providing informed consent, the first survey started, which included measures for core self-evaluation, career decision-making stress, and demographics (and some other variables for the purpose of a different study). After 8 months (February 2022), participating students were invited for the second survey (Time 2), which included the appraisals, career behaviors, and career decision-making stress measures. To increase response rates, both the completion of the survey at Time 1 and Time 2 were rewarded with a €5 gift voucher.

At Time 1, 507 students (22.1%) responded, and 279 students (55.0%) responded at Time 2. These response rates are consistent with other surveys of student populations (Buchanan et al., 2007; El-Ghoroury et al., 2012). We were able to match Time 1 and 2 data from 274 participants. The 5 participants who only responded at Time 2 were included in the analyses to estimate relations between Time 2 variables. Of the final 279 participants 75.3% (n = 210) were female and 22.6% (n = 63) male, and the average age was 24.2 years (SD = 2.34). The sample was diverse in terms of earned study credits (ECTS): 54 (19.4%) students earned 0 to 30 study credits, 39 (14%) students earned 30 to 60 study credits, 58 students (20.8%) earned 60 to 90 credits, 47 (16.8%) students earned 90 to 120 study credits, 44 (15.8%) students earned 120 to 150 study credits, 26 (9.3%) students earned 150 to 180 study credits, and 6 (2.2%) students earned more than 180 study credits. At the Time 2 measurement, 58 participating students were graduated.

An independent samples t test comparing participants who did versus did not complete the Time 2 survey showed no significant differences in age, t (494) = 1.27, p = .20, and gender, t (491) = −0.61, p = .54.

Measures

Core self-evaluation (T1) was measured with Judge et al.’s (2003) 12-item scale, which was demonstrated to be reliable and valid in previous research (Gnambs & Schroeders, 2024; Judge et al., 2003). The scale includes items on self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability (e.g., “I am confident I get the success I deserve in life”; α = .86). Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

COVID-19 appraisals (T2) were measured with six items from Kaltiainen et al.’s (2020) challenge and threat appraisal scales. Their Confirmatory Factor Analysis indicated that challenge and threat appraisals are distinct constructs, demonstrating good discriminant validity. In addition, the challenge appraisal scale (α ranged from .76 to .80) and the threat appraisal scale (α ranged from .76 to .79) were reliable (Kaltiainen et al., 2020). Items were adapted to fit our study context, asking participants to indicate to what extent the items reflected their thoughts and feelings regarding their career in the past 8 months (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Example items are: “The COVID-19 pandemic motivated me to increase my efforts in my career” (challenge appraisal; α = .72) and “I thought that many things could go wrong in my career as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic” (threat appraisal; α = .78).

Approach-oriented career behavior (T2) was measured with the 13-item scale from Strauss et al. (2012). Prior research demonstrated the discriminant validity and reliability of the scale (Lent et al., 2022; Peng et al., 2021; Strauss et al., 2012). This scale combines four career behaviors: Proactive skill development (3 items), networking (3 items), career consultation (3 items), and career planning (4 items). Items were adapted to reflect approach-oriented career behavior during the past 8 months and were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Example items are: “During the past 8 months, I developed skills which may not be needed so much now, but in future positions” (proactive skill development; α = .84), “During the past 8 months, I am building a network of colleagues I can call on for support” (networking; α = .67), “In the past 8 months, I sought advice from my supervisor(s)/teacher(s)/advisor(s) about additional training or experience I need in order to improve my future work prospects” (career consultation; α = .83) and “During the past 8 months, I planned what I want to do in the next few years of my career” (career planning; α = .91).

Avoidance-oriented career behavior (T2) was measured with 14 items from the withdrawal and ignoring subscales from the BERQ (Kraaij & Garnefski, 2019) and the procrastination scale from Van den Hee et al. (2020), rated on 5-point scales ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (often). Prior research found both scales to be reliable (Kraaij & Garnefski, 2019; Van den Hee et al., 2020). For the BERQ subscales, participants indicated the extent to which the items reflect their reaction to an unpleasant or negative career event in the past 8 months. Example items include the following: In the past 8 months, when confronted with a negative or unpleasant career event… “…I isolated myself” (withdrawal; α = .85), and “…I moved on and pretended that nothing happened” (ignoring; α = .89). To measure procrastination, we adapted Van den Hee et al.’s (2020) scale to reflect behavioral and decisional procrastination. Example items are: “During the past 8 months, did you put off completing tasks related to your search for career possibilities?” (behavioral procrastination; α = .90) and “During the past 8 months, did you postpone making decisions about your career?” (decisional procrastination; α = .86).

Career decision-making stress (T1 and T2) was measured with four items of the Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen et al., 1983), adapted to fit the context of this study. Fris et al. (2022) found evidence for the scale’s reliability and discriminant validity. Items referred to the past 4 weeks, to ensure alignment with the temporal order of our model. An example item is: “During the past 4 weeks, I felt stressed about having to make important career choices.” Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (never) to 5 (often). Cronbach’s alphas were .92 (T1) and .93 (T2), respectively.

Control variables. Age (T1), gender (T1), career decision-making stress (T1) and student status (T2) were measured as potential control variables. Age was included as it was found to relate to career decidedness (Neice & Bradley, 1979; Toyokawa & DeWald, 2020). Gender was included as women tend to experience more career decision-making stress than men (Fris et al., 2022). Earned study credits was included to account for differences in career decision-making stress depending on the study phase of the participants. Last, we included T1 career decision-making stress, with the aim to obtain a more precise estimation of the unique variance explained by appraisal and coping behaviors in career decision-making stress at T2.

Results

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and correlations between the study variables.¹ Inspection of the correlation table shows that CSE (T1) was not correlated with challenge appraisals (r = −.00, p = .94), and negatively correlated with threat appraisals (r = −.32, p < .001) at T2. In addition, challenge appraisal (T2) was not correlated with approach-oriented career behavior (T2; r = .07, p = .24) and threat appraisal (T2) was positively correlated with avoidance-oriented career behavior (T2; r = .34, p < .001). Finally, approach-oriented career behavior (T2) was not correlated (r = −.11, p = .09) and avoidance-oriented career behavior (T2) was positively correlated (r = .47, p < .001) with career decision-making stress (T2).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study Variables.

	M	SD	n	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	8a	8b	8c	8d	9	9a	9b	9c	9d
Time 1 variables
1. Gender^a	0.77	0.42	273	-
2. Age	24.22	2.34	274	0.06	-
3. Earned study credits^b	3.33	1.69	274	−0.01	0.37**	-
4. CSE	3.54	0.57	274	−0.06	−0.09	0.09	-
5. CDM stress^c	3.10	1.05	274	0.10	0.02	0.09	−0.49**	-
Time 2 variables
6. Challenge appraisal	2.45	0.86	271	−0.10	0.08	0.06	−0.00	−0.15*	-
7. Threat appraisal	2.24	0.92	271	−0.00	0.03	−0.15*	−0.32**	0.27**	0.03	-
8. Approach-oriented career behavior (M)	3.69	0.65	266	−0.20**	0.02	0.07	0.25**	−0.13*	0.07	−0.08	-
8a. PASD^d	4.12	0.61	266	−0.05	0.03	−0.01	0.19**	−0.14*	0.10	−0.10	0.59**	-
8b. Networking	3.39	0.97	266	−0.18**	0.01	0.12	0.25**	−0.10	0.09	−0.07	0.83**	0.34**	-
8c. CC^e	3.32	1.08	266	−0.18**	0.03	−0.01	0.20**	−0.07	0.03	−0.02	0.85**	0.34**	0.64**	-
8d. Planning	3.91	0.77	266	−0.14*	−0.00	0.10	0.12	−0.09	0.01	−0.07	0.67**	0.28**	0.39**	0.40**	-
9. Avoidance-oriented career behavior (M)	2.59	0.68	256	0.04	−0.07	−0.04	−0.38**	0.39**	−0.03	0.34**	−0.29**	−0.21**	−0.28**	−0.15*	−0.24**	-
9a. Withdrawal	2.30	0.86	253	0.00	−0.08	−0.07	−0.48**	0.22**	0.02	0.35**	−0.12	−0.19**	−0.11	−0.06	−0.03	0.71**	-
9b. Ignoring	2.38	0.91	252	−0.03	−0.09	−0.06	−0.25**	0.18**	0.11	0.24**	−0.16*	−0.12	−0.16**	−0.12*	−0.04	0.66**	0.55**	-
9c. Beh Pro^f	2.87	0.93	256	0.11	−0.01	0.02	−0.20**	0.35**	−0.11	0.18**	−0.29**	−0.14*	−0.28**	−0.14*	−0.30**	0.77**	0.30**	0.18**	-
9d. Dec Pro^g	2.81	0.98	256	0.02	−0.01	0.02	−0.20**	0.37**	−0.10	0.24**	−0.24**	−0.13*	−0.24**	−0.09	−0.27**	0.78**	0.27**	0.22**	0.72**	-
10. CDM stress^c	2.98	1.05	251	0.06	−0.02	−0.06	−0.34**	0.45**	−0.03	0.40**	−0.11	−0.11	−0.13*	−0.06	−0.04	0.47**	0.36**	0.35**	0.31**	0.36**

Note. **p < .01; *p < .05 (2-tailed).

^aCategories include 0 = male, 1 = female.

^bCategories include 1 = 0–30, 2 = 30–60, 3 = 60–90, 4 = 90–120, 5 = 120–150, 6 = 150–180, 7 = more than 180.

^cCareer decision-making stress.

^dProactive skill development.

^eCareer consultation.

^fBehavioral procrastination.

^gDecisional procrastination.

To assess whether inclusion of the control variables was necessary, we inspected the correlations between control variables and career decision-making stress at Time 2. Exclusion of control variables uncorrelated with the dependent variable is preferred to avoid a decline in statistical power (Becker, 2005). We included career decision-making stress at Time 1 as control variable as it correlated with career decision-making stress at Time 2. Because gender, age, and earned study credits were not significantly correlated with career decision-making stress, these were omitted as control variables in subsequent analyses.

Hypothesis Testing

We tested the hypotheses using structural equation modeling in Mplus. We estimated the strength of the relations with Full Information Maximum Likelihood, which uses all available information (accounting for missing values) to estimate the model. Approach- and avoidance-oriented career behavior were included as latent factors (i.e., the behaviors encompassing approach and avoidance loaded on their respective higher order factors). The other variables (i.e., CSE, challenge and threat appraisals, and career decision-making stress) were included as observed variables. We modeled paths from CSE to challenge and threat appraisals (Hypothesis 1a and 1b). In addition, we modeled paths from challenge appraisal to approach-oriented career behavior and from threat appraisal to avoidance-oriented career behavior (Hypothesis 2a and 2b). Subsequently, paths from approach-as well as avoidance-oriented career behavior to career decision-making stress (Time 2) were modeled (Hypothesis 3a and 3b. Finally, a path from career decision-making stress Time 1 to career decision-making stress Time 2 was modeled, and approach- and avoidance-oriented career behaviors were allowed to correlate.

Figure 2 displays the results of the tested model. For Hypothesis 1, results showed that CSE was not related to challenge appraisal (B = −0.01, p = .94; H1a not supported), but negatively related to threat appraisal (B = −0.52, p < .001; H1b supported). Hypothesis 2 predicted a positive relation between challenge appraisal and approach-oriented career behavior (H2a) and a positive relationship between threat appraisal and avoidance-oriented career behavior (H2b). Results showed that challenge appraisal and approach-oriented career behavior were unrelated (B = 0.04, p = .20; H2a not supported), while threat appraisal and avoidance-oriented career behavior were positively related (B = 0.23, p < .001; H2b supported). Hypothesis 3 predicted that approach- and avoidance-oriented career behavior would be negatively (H3a) and positively (H3b) related to career decision-making stress, respectively. Controlling for Time 1 career decision-making stress, results showed that approach-oriented career behavior was unrelated to career decision-making stress (B = 0.45, p = .07; H3a not supported), but that avoidance-oriented career behavior related positively to career decision-making stress (B = 1.57, p < .001; H3b supported).

Figure 2.

Tested Structural Equation Model.

Explorative Analyses

In addition to testing our hypotheses,² we explored direct and indirect effects suggested by the CSC model and tested for full or partial mediation. First, we tested indirect effects from (challenge and threat) appraisals to career decision-making stress via (approach- and avoidance-oriented) career behavior. Next, we added direct paths of CSE to approach- and avoidance-oriented career behavior as well as career decision-making stress and tested for sequential mediation from CSE to career decision-making stress through appraisal and coping behaviors. Finally, we added direct paths of career decision-making stress at Time 1 to challenge and threat appraisals. All indirect effects were assessed using bias-corrected bootstrapping confidence intervals (5000 samples; Cheung, 2009; Hayes, 2009).

As compared to the hypothesized model, model fit improved. Results suggested an indirect effect from threat appraisal to career decision-making stress through avoidance-oriented career behaviors and a sequential mediation effect of CSE on career decision-making stress through threat appraisal and avoidance-oriented career behaviors. No indirect effects were found from challenge appraisal to career decision-making stress nor from CSE to career decision-making stress via challenge appraisal and approach-oriented career behaviors. Supplementary File S2 displays the results of the final model.

Discussion

This study proposed the Career Shock Coping Model to investigate the role of the COVID-19 pandemic, as a career shock, in the development of career decision-making stress among medical students. Supporting the CSC model, we found that CSE was negatively related to COVID-19 threat appraisal, suggesting that students who evaluated themselves more positively were less likely to appraise the COVID-19 pandemic as a threat for their career. In addition, threat appraisal was positively related to avoidance-oriented career behavior, which in turn was positively related to career decision-making stress. Exploratory analyses suggested that avoidance-oriented career behavior fully mediated the relationship between threat appraisal and decisional stress. Students who appraised the COVID-19 pandemic as a threat were more likely to report more career decision-making stress because they avoided career choice directed activities rather than engaging in them. Contrary to our expectations, students’ core self-evaluation was unrelated to appraising the COVID-19 pandemic as a challenge. Also, students’ challenge appraisals were unrelated to their approach-oriented career behavior and their level of career decision-making stress. All in all, we found support for the threat-avoidance coping path in our proposed CSC model but not for the challenge-approach coping path.

Theoretical Implications

Our results bear implications for the career (shocks) literature. Through integrating theory on stress and coping (i.e., TMSC) with career theory (i.e., SCCT) into our CSC model, we demonstrated the importance of the threat appraisal-coping process in determining individual career-related outcomes of career shocks. In line with prior research on the appraisal-coping relationship (Nicholls et al., 2012; Peacock et al., 1993), we found a positive relationship between threat appraisal and avoidance-oriented career behavior. Students who appraised the career shock as more threatening to their career tended to withdraw from their career, ignore potential career problems, and procrastinate career actions and decisions. In line with prior research on the avoidance-stress relation (e.g., Beleaua & Cocoradă, 2016; Tice & Baumeister, 1997), we found that students engaging in avoidance-oriented career behavior experienced more career decision-making stress. Our study demonstrates that the generally maladaptive tendency to engage in avoidance-oriented behavior under conditions perceived as threatening also applies to career shocks. This study extends career self-management literature (which predominantly focuses on approach-oriented career behaviors; Hirschi & Koen, 2021), as it demonstrates the prominence of the threat-avoidance path over the challenge-approach path. Future research investigating the impact of career shocks could take this threat appraisal-coping process into account.

Contrary to our expectations, we found no support for the challenge-approach path of our CSC model. According to Kahneman (2011), people respond to (unexpected) events in two different ways, a fast way (System 1) and/or a slow way (System 2). System 1 is quick, requires little effort, and there is no sense of voluntary control involved (Kahneman, 2011). This system continuously assesses how things are going, whether there is threat, and if so, how to respond. In contrast, System 2 is effortful and capable of more complex computations (Kahneman, 2011). System 2 is conscious, capable of reasoning, makes decisions, and determines what to think about and what to do (Kahneman, 2011). In the event of threat, System 1’s first response would be to flee or hide (i.e., avoid the threat). Students who perceived the COVID-19 pandemic primarily as a threat may have responded in the fast way and may have been unable to overcome this initial flee response as they avoided more slow and cognitive reflections on the situation. Students who perceived the pandemic as less threatening to their career did not avoid thinking about their careers and might have used conscious reasoning (i.e., System 2 thinking) to assess coping options. They may have deemed approach-oriented career behavior to be ineffective given the situation, therefore not intending to engage in them. As intentions and goal-setting predict behavior (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2009; Kleine et al., 2021), this might explain the absence of the hypothesized relation. Future research can investigate whether challenge appraisals lead to reflections and metacognitions on possible coping options.

Alternatively, challenge appraisals may induce approach-oriented career behavior (e.g., career planning, networking) only under certain personal and situational conditions. Future research could investigate potential stimulating or inhibiting personal and situational factors, such as students’ conscientiousness (Rhodes & Dickau, 2013) and experienced time pressure (Wanberg et al., 2020), or a supportive university environment (Shirokova et al., 2016). Conscientiousness and university support may help challenged individuals to enact on intended approach-oriented intentions (Rhodes & Dickau, 2013; Shirokova et al., 2016). Whereas experienced time pressure undermines well-being, it was also found to activate people in seeking career options (Wanberg et al., 2020). A certain necessity to act may stimulate approach-oriented career behaviors. Therefore, the extent to which career shock challenge appraisals inspire approach-oriented career behaviors may depend on individual and contextual factors.

In addition to the absence of the challenge appraisal-coping relation, we found no support for the hypothesized relation between approach-oriented career behavior and career decision-making stress. Engagement in networking, career consultation, skill development, and planning apparently does not alleviate career-related stress. Similarly, prior research demonstrated that people’s proactive career behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic did not diminish their job insecurity (Langerak et al., 2022). Possibly, approach-oriented career behavior may yield not only positive outcomes, such as increased knowledge about possible job options, but also negative ones, such as awareness of career obstacles and requirements, which may generate doubt and uncertainty.

Findings of this study contribute to the CSE literature (Chang et al., 2012; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2009). First, we found that CSE relates negatively to career shock threat appraisals, which extends prior findings showing that lower CSE relates to more perceived stressors (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2009). Second, we found that CSE was unrelated to challenge appraisals. Future research could examine if personal characteristics other than CSE might instigate challenge appraisals. For example, research has demonstrated that extraversion and openness, both of which are different from CSE (Judge et al., 2003), were positively related to challenge appraisals (Mak et al., 2004; Tomaka & Magoc, 2021). In addition, learning goal orientation, which is a more malleable personal characteristic (Noordzij et al., 2013), has been shown to strengthen the relationship between challenging stressors and challenge appraisal (Ma et al., 2021). Future research could disentangle the specific personal characteristics that are associated with challenge appraisals and focus specifically on state-like characteristics that can be targeted for interventions.

Strengths and limitations

Strengths of this study include the introduction of a Career Shock Coping Model that is anchored in stress and career theory (Akkermans et al., 2018; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lent & Brown, 2013; Lent et al., 1994, 2000). Additionally, data were gathered in an extraordinary time (i.e., during the COVID-19 pandemic) among a homogeneous sample, which provided a rare opportunity to study a career shock that affected a large group of individuals.

Nevertheless, some limitations should be taken into account when interpreting the results of this study. First, for practical reasons, such as the availability and retention of student respondents, we tested relationships among our study variables using a two-wave study design. As we measured appraisals, career-related behaviors, and career decision-making stress at the same time, conclusions about the direction of relationships can only be drawn on theoretical grounds. It should be noted though, that our findings remained significant when controlling for prior levels of career decision-making stress, which strengthens our findings. Moreover, there is a vast body of research showing that appraisal cognitions precede behavior (e.g., Doron & Martinent, 2017; Goh et al., 2010; Sweet et al., 1999).

A second limitation concerns possible common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). As we measured our variables using self-reports, there is a chance of inflated relationships. We limited common method bias by guarantying response anonymity (Cooper et al., 2020; Podsakoff et al., 2003) and varying our response scales (Cooper et al., 2020). As correlations between our study variables vary substantially (including insignificant correlations), it seems unlikely that common method bias threatens our conclusions. In addition, multimethod studies do not necessarily find lower correlations than monomethod studies, and evidence for biasing variables (e.g., acquiescence) inflating correlations in self-report studies is mixed or non-existent (Spector, 2006).

Third, the recruitment method used (e-mail invitations) yielded a modest response rate (22.1% at Time 1), which increases vulnerability to response bias. To get an indication of response bias, we compared our Time 1 sample to the population (i.e., medical master’s students in the two participating medical schools). In terms of gender, female students are slightly better represented in our sample (sample: 75.3%, population: 68%). In terms of age, our sample was slightly younger than the population (sample: 24.2, population 25.5).

Finally, with this study we were interested in one specific career shock, and individual differences in coping with this shock. Therefore, we measured the appraisal of the career shock, and not its specific characteristics (e.g., predictability, controllability, valence, duration, and source; Akkermans et al., 2018). Future research could use these characteristics to compare the impact of career shocks differing on these dimensions.

Future Research Directions

Our study provides several directions for future research. First, our CSC model could be tested for other career shocks. Career shocks are highly heterogeneous and therefore may evoke different types of appraisals, behavioral responses, and career-related outcomes. For example, career shocks at work (e.g., unexpected changes in leadership, reorganizations) that directly affect employees’ career opportunities may trigger adaptive approach-oriented career behavior such as turnover (Shipp et al., 2014), career changes (Carless & Arnup, 2011), or job crafting (Akkermans & Tims, 2017). Alternative relevant career-related outcomes include person-environment fit (e.g., person-job fit; Van Vianen, 2018), job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2017), and career satisfaction (Lee et al., 2017). Also, future research could test the CSC model relationships in different samples and career stages. Our sample consisted of master’s students in medicine in The Netherlands. Levels of career decision-making stress and levels of engagement in approach- and avoidance-oriented career behaviors may be different in other student samples and in later career stages. Testing the CSC model in different settings and among various samples is need to examine the generalizability of our findings, and will allow for a more comprehensive understanding of career shocks and the mechanisms at play.

Second, future research could take a temporal perspective and identify individual trajectories of appraisal and coping over time and how these relate to career-related outcomes. For example, in the event of job loss, briefly engaging in avoidance-oriented coping may not lead to negative outcomes provided this coping strategy changes over time to an approach-oriented strategy. In addition, minimizing time between the occurrence of a career shock and measurement of appraisals allows for measuring more spontaneous appraisals of the shock. Possibly, such spontaneous challenge appraisals do result in more approach-oriented career behavior. These temporal processes can be studied using experience sampling methods.

Third, future research could use qualitative methods to validate the Career Shock Coping model and to further explore the role of challenge and threat appraisals in the career shock coping process.

Practical Implications

Our findings have implications for career counselors and universities. First, the finding that CSE relates to threat appraisals can be used to identify individuals who are at risk of coping aversively with career shocks. In the event of a career shock, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, extra support (e.g., career counseling, peer support groups) can be provided to these individuals. Second, this study provides directives for providing support to people dealing with a career shock. As our study demonstrates that threat appraisals are related to career decision-making stress via avoidance-oriented coping behavior, career counselors can help to reappraise the threat of a career shock. They can help clients to positively reframe the threat by stimulating reflection on the positive sides of the career shock and what they could learn from it (Ranney et al., 2017). In addition, during counseling sessions, individuals’ coping strategies can be discussed, and counselors can provide support to engage in coping behaviors other than avoidance-oriented coping.

Conclusion

This study proposed and tested a Career Shock Coping Model in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results suggest that appraising a career shock as a threat can have negative consequences for career decision-making stress. Therefore, career counselors and coaches could guide clients in reappraising the threat of a career shock and support clients in the development of adaptive coping strategies. Future research can build on our findings by investigating the CSCM in different contexts and investigating the role of time in the appraisal-coping processes of career shocks.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Challenge or Threat? Proposing and Testing a Career Shock Coping Model

Supplemental Material for Challenge or Threat? Proposing and Testing a Career Shock Coping Model by Daan A. H. Fris, Annelies E. M. Van Vianen, Edwin A. J. van Hooft, Matthijs de Hoog, and Anne P. J. de Pagter in Journal of Career Development.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank F.L.H. Muntinghe,PhD,and C.G. Veldman,MSc,both from the University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG),for their assistance in participant recruitment during this study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Daan A. H. Fris

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Daan A. H. Fris,After completing his Master’s in Work and Organizational Psychology,Daan started a PhD at Erasmus MC and the University of Amsterdam. His research focuses on self-regulation,career behavior,and coaching,exploring how people manage and shape their careers. In his free time,Daan enjoys staying active through various sports.

Annelies E. M. Van Vianen,Annelies is professor emeritus Work and Organizational Psychology at the University of Amsterdam. Her research interests include person-organization fit,gender and work,intelligence,justice,self-regulation,career development,and coaching. In her free time,she hikes and attends ballet and music performances.

Edwin A. J. Van Hooft,Edwin is full professor at the Work and Organizational Psychology department of the University of Amsterdam. His research interests include motivation and self-regulation,career behavior,mental health at work,recruitment,and assessment. His leisure activities include sports,theater,and hiking.

Matthijs De Hoog,Matthijs is pediatrician and full professor at the Erasmus MC. His research interests include coaching,physician health and wellbeing,postgraduate medical education and clinical pharmacology in pediatric intensive care patients. Matthijs likes to ride his speedbike or play golf in his spare time.

Anne P. J. De Pagter,Anne PJ de Pagter (MD,PhD) is an associate professor,pediatric hematologist in the Erasmus MC-Sophia Children’s Hospital in Rotterdam and the Willem-Alexander Children’s Hospital (WAKZ) of the LUMC in Leiden,the Netherlands and founder of the nationwide Challenge & Support programme and research network. Her research interests include coaching,physician health and wellbeing,quality of care and lifelong impact of high intensity treatments in childhood. To optimize the work/non work balance,she enjoys family life and open water swimming.

References

Ahmad

Nasir

(2021). Positive career shocks and career optimism: Testing the mediating role of career decision-making self-efficacy. Journal of Asian Business and Economic Studies, 30(2), 105–125. https://doi.org/10.1108/jabes-07-2021-0110

Akkermans

Richardson

Kraimer

M. L.

(2020). The Covid-19 crisis as a career shock: Implications for careers and vocational behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 119, Article 103434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103434

Akkermans

Seibert

S. E.

Mol

S. T.

(2018). Tales of the unexpected: Integrating career shocks in the contemporary careers literature. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 44(1), Article a1503. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v44i0.1503

Akkermans

Tims

(2017). Crafting your career: How career competencies relate to career success via job crafting. Applied Psychology, 66(1), 168–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12082

Armitage

C. J.

Conner

(2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta- analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(Pt 4), 471–499. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939

Arslan

Ü.

Bayraktar-Uyar

(2020). Do career decidedness and career distress influence psychological and subjective wellbeing? The mediating role of mindfulness. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 7(2), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.783328

Becker

T. E.

(2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8(3), 274–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105278021

Beleaua

R.-e.

Cocoradă

(2016). Procrastination, stress and coping in students and employees. Romanian Journal of Experimental Applied Psychology, 7(1), 191–195. https://doi.org/10.15303/rjeap.2016.si1.a40

Blokker

Akkermans

Tims

Jansen

Khapova

(2019). Building a sustainable start: The role of career competencies, career success, and career shocks in young professionals’ employability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 172–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.02.013

10.

Bright

J. E. H.

Pryor

R. G. L.

Harpham

(2005). The role of chance events in career decision making. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(3), 561–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.001

11.

Buchanan

F. R.

Kim

Basham

(2007). Career orientations of business master’s students as compared to social work students. Career Development International, 12(3), 282–303. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430710745908

12.

Byrnes

Y. M.

Civantos

A. M.

B. C.

McWilliams

T. L.

Rajasekaran

(2020). Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical student career perceptions: A national survey study. Medical Education Online, 25(1), Article 1798088. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2020.1798088

13.

Cai

C. Z.

Lin

Alias

Wong

L. P.

(2021). Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical student career perceptions: Perspectives from medical students in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(10), 5071. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18105071

14.

Carless

S. A.

Arnup

J. L.

(2011). A longitudinal study of the determinants and outcomes of career change. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78(1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.09.002

15.

Chang

C.-H. D.

Ferris

D. L.

Johnson

R. E.

Rosen

C. C.

Tan

J. A.

(2012). Core self- evaluations: A review and evaluation of the literature. Journal of Management, 38(1), 81–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311419661

16.

Cheung

M. W.-L.

(2009). Comparison of methods for constructing confidence intervals of standardized indirect effects. Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 425–438. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.2.425

17.

Claes

Ruiz-Quintanilla

S. A.

(1998). Influences of early career experiences, occupational group, and national culture on proactive career behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52(3), 357–378. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1997.1626

18.

Cohen

Kamarck

Mermelstein

(1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404

19.

Cooper

Eva

Zarea Fazlelahi

Newman

Lee

Obschonka

(2020). Addressing common method variance and endogeneity in vocational behavior research: A review of the literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 121, 103472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103472

20.

Creed

P. A.

Hood

Praskova

Makransky

(2016). The career distress scale: Using rasch measurement theory to evaluate a brief measure of career distress. Journal of Career Assessment, 24(4), 732–746. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072715616126

21.

Deng

Que

Zhang

Liu

Chen

Gong

Sun

Yuan

Bao

Ran

Shi

Wing

Y. K.

Shi

(2021). Effects of COVID-19 on career and specialty choices among Chinese medical students. Medical Education Online, 26(1), Article 1913785. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2021.1913785

22.

Doron

Martinent

(2017). Appraisal, coping, emotion, and performance during elite fencing matches: A random coefficient regression model approach. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 27(9), 1015–1025. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12711

23.

El-Ghoroury

N. H.

Galper

D. I.

Sawaqdeh

Bufka

L. F.

(2012). Stress, coping, and barriers to wellness among psychology graduate students. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 6(2), 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028768

24.

Forret

M. L.

Dougherty

T. W.

(2004). Networking behaviors and career outcomes: Differences for men and women? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 419–437. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.253

25.

Fris

D. A. H.

Van Vianen

A. E. M.

Koen

De Hoog

De Pagter

A. P. J.

(2022). Medical students’ career decision-making stress during clinical clerkships. Perspectives on Medical Education, 11(6), 350–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-022-00734-8

26.

Frydenberg

Lewis

(2009). Relations among well-being, avoidant coping, and active coping in a large sample of Australian adolescents. Psychological Reports, 104(3), 745–758. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.104.3.745-758

27.

Fugate

Prussia

G. E.

Kinicki

A. J.

(2012). Managing employee withdrawal during organizational change. Journal of Management, 38(3), 890–914. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352881

28.

Germeijs

Verschueren

Soenens

(2006). Indecisiveness and high school students’ career decision-making process: Longitudinal associations and the mediational role of anxiety. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(4), 397–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.4.397

29.

Gnambs

Schroeders

(2024). Reliability and factorial validity of the core self-evaluations scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000783

30.

Goh

Y. W.

Sawang

Oei

T. P. S.

(2010). The revised transactional model (RTM) of occupational stress and coping: An improved process approach. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Organisational Psychology, 3, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1375/ajop.3.1.13

31.

Gould

(1979). Characteristics of career planners in upwardly mobile occupations. Academy of Management Journal, 22(3), 539–550. https://doi.org/10.2307/255743

32.

Green

D. L.

Choi

J. J.

Kane

M. N.

(2010). Coping strategies for victims of crime: Effects of the use of emotion-focused, problem-focused, and avoidance-oriented coping. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 20(6), 732–743. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911351003749128

33.

Gunthert

K. C.

Cohen

L. H.

Armeli

(1999). The role of neuroticism in daily stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1087–1100. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1087

34.

Hagger

M. S.

Chatzisarantis

N. L. D.

(2009). Integrating the theory of planned behaviour and self-determination theory in health behaviour: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Health Psychology, 14(Pt 2), 275–302. https://doi.org/10.1348/135910708x373959

35.

Hayes

A. F.

(2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360

36.

Higgins

E. T.

Roney

C. J. R.

Crowe

Hymes

(1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(2), 276–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.2.276

37.

Hirschi

Herrmann

Keller

A. C.

(2015). Career adaptivity, adaptability, and adapting: A conceptual and empirical investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 87, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.11.008

38.

Hirschi

Koen

(2021). Contemporary career orientations and career self-management: A review and integration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 126(3), Article 103505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103505

39.

Hirschi

Lee

Porfeli

E. J.

Vondracek

F. W.

(2013). Proactive motivation and engagement in career behaviors: Investigating direct, mediated, and moderated effects. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.02.003

40.

Hofer

Spurk

Hirschi

(2021). When and why do negative organization-related career shocks impair career optimism? A conditional indirect effect model. Career Development International, 26(4), 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1108/cdi-12-2018-0299

41.

Holahan

C. J.

Moos

R. H.

Holahan

C. K.

Brennan

P. L.

Schutte

K. K.

(2005). Stress generation, avoidance coping, and depressive symptoms: A 10-year model. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(4), 658–666. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.4.658

42.

Judge

T. A.

Erez

Bono

J. E.

Thoresen

C. J.

(2003). The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 303–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00152.x

43.

Judge

T. A.

Locke

E. A.

Durham

C. C.

Kluger

A. N.

(1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.1.17

44.

Judge

T. A.

Weiss

H. M.

Kammeyer-Mueller

J. D.

Hulin

C. L.

(2017). Job attitudes, job satisfaction, and job affect: A century of continuity and of change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 356–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000181

45.

Kahneman

(2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

46.

Kaltiainen

Lipponen

Fugate

Vakola

(2020). Spiraling work engagement and change appraisals: A three-wave longitudinal study during organizational change. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 25(4), 244–258. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000163

47.

Kammeyer-Mueller

J. D.

Judge

T. A.

Scott

B. A.

(2009). The role of core self- evaluations in the coping process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 177–195. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013214

48.

Kleine

A.-K.

Schmitt

Wisse

(2021). Students’ career exploration: A meta- analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 131, 103645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103645

49.

Kraaij

Garnefski

(2019). The behavioral emotion regulation questionnaire: Development, psychometric properties and relationships with emotional problems and the cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 137(1), 56–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.07.036

50.

Kraimer

M. L.

Greco

Seibert

S. E.

Sargent

L. D.

(2019). An investigation of academic career success: The new tempo of academic life. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 18(2), 128–152. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2017.0391

51.

Krier

C. R.

Quinn

Kaljo

Farkas

A. H.

Ellinas

E. H.

(2022). The effect of COVID-19 on the medical school experience, specialty selection, and career choice: A qualitative study. Journal of Surgical Education, 79(3), 661–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.11.007

52.

Kuppens

Tong

E. M. W.

(2010). An appraisal account of individual differences in emotional experience. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(12), 1138–1150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00324.x

53.

Langerak

J. B.

Koen

Van Hooft

E. A. J.

(2022). How to minimize job insecurity: The role of proactive and reactive coping over time. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 136(3), 103729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103729

54.

Lazarus

R. S.

(2001). Relational meaning and discrete emotions. In Scherer

K. R.

Schorr

Johnstone

(Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 37–67). Oxford University Press.

55.

Lazarus

R. S.

Folkman

(1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.

56.

Lee

C. I. S. G.

Bosco

F. A.

Steel

Uggerslev

K. L.

(2017). A metabus-enabled meta- analysis of career satisfaction. Career Development International, 22(5), 565–582. https://doi.org/10.1108/cdi-08-2017-0137

57.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

(2013). Social cognitive model of career self-management: Toward a unifying view of adaptive career behavior across the life span. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(4), 557–568. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033446

58.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027

59.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.47.1.36

60.

Lent

R. W.

Morris

T. R.

Wang

R. J.

Moturu

B. P.

Cygrymus

E. R.

Yeung

J. G.

(2022). Test of a social cognitive model of proactive career behavior. Journal of Career Assessment, 30(4), 756–775. https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727221080948

61.

Peng

(2021). Challenging or hindering? The roles of goal orientation and cognitive appraisal in stressor‐performance relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(3), 388–406. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2503

62.

Mak

A. S.

Blewitt

Heaven

P. C. L.

(2004). Gender and personality influences in adolescent threat and challenge appraisals and depressive symptoms. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(6), 1483–1496. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(03)00243-5

63.

Moos

R. H.

Brennan

P. L.

Fondacaro

M. R.

Moos

B. S.

(1990). Approach and avoidance coping responses among older problem and nonproblem drinkers. Psychology and Aging, 5(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.5.1.31

64.

Neice

D. E.

Bradley

R. W.

(1979). Relationship of age, sex, and educational groups to career decisiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(3), 271–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(79)90055-1

65.

Nicholls

A. R.

Polman

R. C. J.

Levy

A. R.

(2012). A path analysis of stress appraisals, emotions, coping, and performance satisfaction among athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(3), 263–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.12.003

66.

Noordzij

Van Hooft

E. A. J.

Van Mierlo

Van Dam

Born

M. P.

(2013). The effects of a learning-goal orientation training on self-regulation: A field experiment among unemployed job seekers. Personnel Psychology, 66(3), 723–755. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12011

67.

Parker

S. K.

Bindl

U. K.

Strauss

(2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827–856. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310363732

68.

Peacock

E. J.

Wong

P. T. P.

Reker

G. T.

(1993). Relations between appraisals and coping schemas: Support for the congruence model. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 25(1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0078787

69.

Peng

Song

(2021). Cultivating proactive career behavior: The role of career adaptability and job embeddedness. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 603890. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.603890

70.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J.-Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

71.

Pychyl

T. A.

Sirois

F. M.

(2016). Procrastination, emotion regulation, and well-being. In Sirois

F. M.

Pychyl

T. A.

(Eds.), Procrastination, health, and well-being (pp. 163–188). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802862-9.00008-6

72.

Ragins

B. R.

Lyness

K. S.

Williams

L. J.

Winkel

(2014). Life spillovers: The spillover of fear of home foreclosure to the workplace. Personnel Psychology, 67(4), 763–800. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12065

73.

Ranney

R. M.

Bruehlman-Senecal

Ayduk

Ö.

(2017). Comparing the effects of three online cognitive reappraisal trainings on well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(5), 1319–1338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9779-0

74.

Rhodes

R. E.

Dickau

(2013). Moderators of the intention-behaviour relationship in the physical activity domain: A systematic review. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 47(4), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2011-090411

75.

Rogers

M. E.

Creed

P. A.

Ian Glendon

(2008). The role of personality in adolescent career planning and exploration: A social cognitive perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(1), 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.02.002

76.

Roth

Cohen

L. J.

(1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. American Psychologist, 41(7), 813–819. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.41.7.813

77.

Searle

B. J.

Auton

J. C.

(2015). The merits of measuring challenge and hindrance appraisals. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 28(2), 121–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2014.931378

78.

Shipp

A. J.

Furst-Holloway

Harris

T. B.

Rosen

(2014). Gone today but here tomorrow: Extending the unfolding model of turnover to consider boomerang employees. Personnel Psychology, 67(2), 421–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12039

79.

Shirokova

Osiyevskyy

Bogatyreva

(2016). Exploring the intention–behavior link in student entrepreneurship: Moderating effects of individual and environmental characteristics. European Management Journal, 34(4), 386–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2015.12.007

80.

Spector

P. E.

(2006). Method variance in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105284955

81.

Strauser

D. R.

Shen

Greco

Fine

Liptak

(2020). Work personality, core self-evaluation and perceived career barriers in young adult central nervous system cancer survivors. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 31(1), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09897-9

82.

Strauss

Griffin

M. A.

Parker

S. K.

(2012). Future work selves: How salient hoped- for identities motivate proactive career behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 580–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026423

83.

Sweet

Savoie

J. A.

Lemyre

(1999). Appraisals, coping, and stress in breast cancer screening: A longitudinal investigation of causal structure. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 31(4), 240–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087093

84.

Tice

D. M.

Baumeister

R. F.

(1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination, performance, stress, and health: The costs and benefits of dawdling. Psychological Science, 8(6), 454–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00460.x

85.

Tice

D. M.

Bratslavsky

Baumeister

R. F.

(2001). Emotional distress regulation takes precedence over impulse control: If you feel bad, do it. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.53

86.

Tomaka

Magoc

(2021). Personality antecedents of challenge and threat appraisal. Stress and Health, 37(4), 682–691. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3028

87.

Toyokawa

DeWald

(2020). Perceived career barriers and career decidedness of first‐generation college students. The Career Development Quarterly, 68(4), 332–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12240

88.

Valls

González-Romá

Hernández

Rocabert

(2020). Proactive personality and early employment outcomes: The mediating role of career planning and the moderator role of core self-evaluations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 119, 103424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103424

89.

Van den Hee

S. M.

Van Hooft

E. A. J.

Van Vianen

A. E. M.

(2020). A temporal perspective of job search: The relation between personality attributes, motivation, job search behavior, and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 122, 103489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103489

90.

Van Vianen

A. E. M.

(2018). Person–environment fit: A review of its basic tenets. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 75–101. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104702

91.

Vukelić

Džinović

Čizmić

Petrović

I. B.

(2021). A study of career shocks from the perspective of personal construct psychology: Small business owners in the jaws of the COVID-19 pandemic in Serbia. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 36(1), 22–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2021.2019631

92.

Wanberg

C. R.

Van Hooft

E. A. J.

Dossinger

Van Vianen

A. E. M.

Klehe

U.-C.

(2020). How strong is my safety net? Perceived unemployment insurance generosity and implications for job search, mental health, and reemployment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(3), 209–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000435

93.

Bhang

C. H.

(2019). The structure and measurement of career indecision: A critical review. The Career Development Quarterly, 67(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12159

94.

Zhou

Jiang

Khapova

S. N.

(2023). Workplace-related negative career shocks on perceived employability: The role of networking behaviors and perceived career Opportunities. Sustainability, 15(15), 11969. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511969

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.34 MB