The impact of future work self on perceived employability and career distress

Abstract

Future work self is a promising concept to understand how young people view and plan their careers in the contemporary workplace. In this study, we attempt to investigate its impacts on two career-related outcomes, namely, perceived employability and career distress. Informed by social cognitive career theory, we also explore the mediating role of career decision self-efficacy in the above relationships. Several hypotheses were developed and tested with a sample of 208 final-year undergraduate students (with a mean age of 21.5 and 145 of them are female) in China. The results of structural equation modeling and bootstrapping indicated that future work self has a positive relationship with perceived employability and a negative relationship with career distress, while these relationships are found to be mediated by career decision self-efficacy. Our study has advanced our understanding about how future work self contributes to career-related well-being among Chinese students.

Keywords

Career distress career decision self-efficacy future work self perceived employability Chinese students

In the wake of economic and technological changes, young people face more uncertainty in their work lives. Many of them worry about their employment prospects and future career development under the turbulent economy (Hou et al., 2014). In particular, university graduates have to deal with many crucial career-related issues, including career planning, job choices, and securing long-term employment. These issues are often difficult to handle, bringing about anxiety, confusion, and stress for them, as well as lowering their psychological well-being (Rottinghaus et al., 2009). Researchers, educators, and practitioners have sought to find ways to enhance their employability and reduce their career distress.

A promising concept to understand how young adults view and plan their careers is future work self (FWS). It concerns with an individual's representation of oneself in the future, particularly their hopes and aspirations as related to work (Strauss et al., 2012). As suggested by Lin et al. (2016), self-imaging plays a crucial role for university students’ career development. Previous research has showed that FWS is related to proactive career behaviors (Lu, 2020; Vucic & Bolton, 2019), and it can enhance one's confidence in job search (Guan et al., 2014). It follows that FWS may lead to some positive vocational and career outcomes for young people.

In this study, we aim to investigate the relationship between FWS and career well-being. Career well-being can facilitate young adults’ vocational development and career progress (Skorikov, 2007), and thus understanding its influencing factors is important (Creed et al., 2017). However, the possible effect of FWS on individuals’ career well-being has not been explored in previous research. To fill this knowledge gap, a conceptual model is proposed by us to examine their relationship and the underlying mechanism. Following the earlier works of Creed and associates (2015, 2017), we employ perceived employability and career distress as two main indicators of career well-being for university students. We expect a positive relationship between FWS and perceived employability, and a negative relationship between FWS and career distress. Drawn upon social cognitive career theory (Lent et al., 1994), we further evaluate the mediating effect of career decision self-efficacy (CDSE) in the above relationships. By investigating the mechanism that links FWS with career well-being, we hope to provide some insights into research and practices in this area.

Our conceptual model is tested with a sample of 208 final-year students in a Chinese University. China is selected as our research context for the following two reasons. First, it has been suggested that the young generation in China today are substantially different from the older generations in terms of career attitudes and abilities (Yi et al., 2015). For example, they display more confidence in requesting a promotion and take more initiatives to move upward in the organizational hierarchy (Yi et al., 2010). For the new generation, it is vital to examine how their work orientations and aspirations shape their career decision-making and influence their career outcomes. Second, previous research suggested that university students in different cultures exhibit different vocational behaviors and career decision-making (Cheung et al., 2020). Some cultural values in China, such as collectivism, low ambiguity avoidance, and long-term orientation, are thought to play a salient role in the career decision-making process (Zhang et al., 2019). It has also been pointed out that Chinese are more tolerant of an unpredictable future (Xu et al., 2016). Yet we know little about how Chinese students’ view about their future work affects the way that they manage their careers, and thus more studies on this topic are warranted.

Literature review

Future work self

The concept of future self denotes individuals’ specific and individualized images of what they might become. It offers a base for foreseeing future events, setting goals, making plans, seeking opportunities, making commitments, and directing a developmental trajectory (Creed & Klisch, 2005). Specifically, FWS pertains to an individual's anticipations and desires for future self in the context of work (Strauss et al., 2012). Guan et al. (2017) suggested that FWS enables individuals envision their desirable work life in the future, and recognize the gap between the present and the ideal state in the employment domain.

FWS provides an important link between vocational self-concept and behaviors, and acts as a driving force incentivizing work-related behaviors in the future (Strauss et al., 2012). FWS can also be viewed as a source of motivation catalyzing some proactive career behaviors, including career planning, network building, and skill development (Lu, 2020; Taber & Blankemeyer, 2015; Vucic & Bolton, 2019). Earlier research has found that FWS is positively related to university students’ vocational goal setting, vocational identity, career adaptability, career ambition, job search behaviors, and employment status (Chan & Chan, 2021; Guan et al., 2017; Guan et al., 2014; Kao et al., 2022). In the present study, we conceptualize FWS as an individual-differences variable that influences the process of career decision-making and the achievement of career outcomes for university students.

Self-perceived employability

Rothwell et al. (2008) defined employability as “the perceived ability to attain sustainable employment appropriate to one's qualification level” (p. 2). The construct is especially relevant to university students since they tend to strive for a certain extent of continuous employment to build their own careers after leaving school (Rothwell et al., 2008). Subsequent research has shown that this socio-psychological construct is associated with job search self-efficacy, job search intention, and job search behavior (Yizhong et al., 2017).

A growing body of literature has explored the antecedents of perceived employability of students (Álvarez-González et al., 2017). Donald et al. (2019) found that human capital, receiving careers advice, and holding a protean career orientation are key factors affecting undergraduates’ self-perception of employability. Qenani et al. (2014) highlighted the importance of self-responsibility factors (as represented by internship experience and self-managed career behavior) in boosting perceived employability.

Career distress

Distress refers to a discomforting psychological state which stems from ineffective problem solving and a feeling of lack of control in response to a specific stressor (Ridner, 2004). As a specific type of distress, career distress emerges when individuals feel distress about making career decisions, and refrain from career planning or setting career goals (Creed & Gagliardi, 2015).

Some scholars have considered career distress as a key indicator of well-being for university students (Creed & Gagliardi, 2015). During the transition from school to full-time employment, university graduates are likely to suffer from career distress. In current literature, several factors have been recognized as antecedents of career distress, encompassing career indecision, career incongruence, career compromise, poor career preparation, and underdeveloped vocational identity, career goal discrepancy, discrepancy between adolescent-set and parent-set career goals (Creed et al., 2016; Creed & Gagliardi, 2015; Praskova & McPeake, 2022; Sawitri et al., 2021). However, relatively little work has examined factors that reduce career distress for young people.

Hypotheses development

Future work self and CDSE

CDSE refers to beliefs in one's capability to successfully accomplish tasks needed in the process of career decision-making (Betz et al., 1996). Being a core construct in social cognitive career theory, CDSE has been considered as a proximal factor predicting an individual's career choices and outcomes (Lent et al., 1994).

Several personal variables have been identified as antecedents of CDSE, including personality traits and protean career orientation (Hartman & Betz, 2007; Li et al., 2019). FWS, which is conceptualized as an individual-differences variable, could be an important predictor of CDSE. It has been contended that if individuals perceive their career-related performance outcomes as successful, their CDSE will be strengthened (Shin & Lee, 2017). As discussed above, students with higher levels of FWS engage more in proactive career behaviors, particularly career planning and career exploration (Taber & Blankemeyer, 2015). Having a clearer vision and stronger motivation to reach their career goals, they are likely to work harder and put more efforts to acquire new skills and knowledge (Walker & Tracey, 2012). These behaviors are conducive to the accomplishment of personal career goals, which then enhances one's CDSE (Cheung & Jin, 2015). Empirically, Nilforooshan (2020) found that FWS is positively related to CDSE. In line with the above arguments and evidence, we propose the following hypothesis.

H1: FWS is positively related to CDSE.

CDSE and perceived employability

Several studies have reported the association between self-efficacy and perceived employability (Huang, 2015; Lim & Loo, 2003). As an illustration, Lim and Loo (2003) argued that those who have high levels of self-efficacy believe that they have the skills and capabilities to perform well in their future work, and hence they tend to perceive higher employability.

Being a specific type of self-efficacy, CDSE is expected to boost perceived employability. Penn and Lent (2018) contended that CDSE helps individuals organize and deploy relevant skills, and persist at career exploration and decision-making tasks. Accordingly, students with more CDSE are better prepared for their future careers, and have greater confidence in gaining employment commensurate with their level of qualifications. Besides, some studies have reported that CDSE raises students’ positive expectations about their career outcomes (Chui et al., 2022). It follows that students with stronger CDSE would be more optimistic about their future employment prospects and have a more positive perception of their employability. The following hypothesis is thus put forward.

H2: CDSE is positively related to perceived employability.

CDSE and career distress

Three reasons can explain the link between CDSE and career distress. First, as discussed earlier, career indecision is highly correlated with career distress (Creed et al., 2016). By facilitating career exploration and career planning, CDSE helps to reduce career indecision and hence lessen career distress (Lam & Santos, 2017). Second, individuals with higher CDSE tend to look for more assistance and supports (Taylor & Betz, 1983), and thus they can better handle various career decisions than others. For that reason, they would perceive less obstacles and difficulties in their career development (Santos et al., 2018), and hence they tend to experience less anxiety and distress when making career decisions (Penn & Lent, 2018). Conversely, those who with lower CDSE are likely to encounter greater difficulties in career decision-making (Lam & Santos, 2017), which will bring about some unpleasant emotions and feelings for them (Di Fabio & Saklofske, 2014). Third, previous studies have indicated that CDSE is positively related to career optimism (Chui et al., 2022), while career optimism has been found to be negatively associated with career stress (Kim et al., 2014). Taken the above theoretical arguments and empirical evidence together, we propose the following hypothesis.

H3: CDSE is negatively related to career distress.

The mediating role of CDSE

As far as we know, the linkage between FWS and self-perceived employability has not yet been addressed by researchers. Individuals with higher levels of FWS tend to engage more in proactive career behaviors, and hence they would obtain more vocational information and perceive higher employability. Additionally, FWS provides them with motivation to acquire more work-related skills and knowledge, which help them better prepare for their future employment (Walker & Tracey, 2012). While it is logical to predict a positive relationship between the two constructs, we argue that FWS is a distal antecedent of perceived employability, and CDSE could be an important mediator between them.

In current career literature, CDSE has been viewed as a proximal factor that connects some personal and contextual factors with career-related outcomes (Lent et al., 1994). For instance, in a study of university students in the United States and Hong Kong, Li et al. (2019) found that CDSE acts as a mediator in the relationship between protean career orientation and career decidedness. Hou et al. (2014) also revealed that CDSE mediates the effect of proactive personality on career adaptability. Consistent with these studies, we argue that CDSE may serve as a mediating mechanism through which FWS affects perceived employability. Specifically, college students who have higher FWS are expected to have stronger CDSE, which enables them to prepare for and have stronger confidence in securing a continuous employment after graduation. Based on the above reasoning, we develop a mediating hypothesis.

H4: CDSE mediates the effect of FWS on perceived employability.

In general, individuals who are high in FWS are more engaged in proactive career behaviors, and better develop their vocational goals and identity (Guan et al., 2017). As they have better preparations for their future employment, they are less likely to find difficulties in making career decisions. This helps them to reduce uncertainty and anxiety associated with career planning (Praskova et al., 2015). One may thus expect a negative relationship between FWS and career distress. In the present study, we argue that CDSE would play a mediating role in this relationship. Above we suggested that students with a higher level of FWS would be more confident in their ability to make career decisions. With higher CDSE, they are able to cope with some barriers and difficulties in the process of career decision-making, and hence they may feel less career distress than those with lower CDSE. It follows that the effect of FWS on career distress may not be a direct one, but instead an indirect one via CDSE. The following mediating hypothesis is thus proposed.

H5: CDSE mediates the effect of FWS on career distress.

Method

Participants and procedures

We collected the data via a questionnaire survey from undergraduate students in a public university located in South China. Convenience sampling was adopted, and an invitation to participate in the survey was sent to the final-year students in ten different classes of the Faculty of Business in 2019. Their majors include business administration, tourism management, human resource management, marketing, information management and information system, administrative management, and electronic commerce. The targeted respondents were informed of the survey purpose and their participation was voluntary. Anonymity and confidentiality were assured. The students who completed the online survey would receive 1 RMB (around 0.15 US dollars) as a small incentive.

The questionnaires were administered in Chinese. Since we adopted some measures originally written in English, the procedures of translation and back-translation (Brislin, 1970) were applied so as to ensure the equality of meanings between the original items and the translated Chinese ones.

Altogether, 319 questionnaires were distributed online and finally 208 students completed and returned the questionnaires, representing a response rate of 65.2%. Among these participants, 145 (69.7%) of them were female, and 63 (30.3%) were male. Their average age was 21.50, with a standard deviation of 1.17.

Measures

Respondents rated the level of agreement with the items in each measure using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. We obtained the scale scores by taking the average of all items in the scale. A higher score indicated a higher level of the measure.

Future work self (FWS) . A five-item scale, designed by Strauss et al. (2012), was adopted to measure future work self. Its discriminant validity, predictive validity, and reliability have been demonstrated by Strauss et al. (2012). The measure has been successfully employed in studies with Chinese university student samples with sufficient reliability (e.g., Guan et al., 2014, 2017; Lu, 2020). Respondents were asked to imagine their desirable future selves in terms of work, keep such mental image in mind, and then rate the levels of agreement with the items belonging to the scale. A sample item is “I am very clear about who and what I want to become in my future work”. In the present study, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient, composite reliability, McDonald's omega for this scale were the same, equal to .88, and the average variance extracted was .61.

CDSE . CDSE was assessed with the eight-item scale developed by Ho and Sum (2018). This scale has been shown to possess sufficient construct validity and reliability in previous studies (Ho & Sum, 2018; Li et al., 2019). This scale has been found to have sufficient reliability in Hong Kong university student samples (e.g., Chui et al., 2022; Li et al., 2019). A sample item includes “I am able to choose a career that will fit my ability”. In our study, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient, composite reliability, and McDonald's omega for this scale were recorded at .86. The average variance extracted was .44, falling slightly below the recommended level of .50. According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), its overall reliability is still considered as acceptable.

Perceived employability . A 16-item scale, designed by Rothwell et al. (2008), was adopted to assess perceived employability. The scale has been reported to display good construct validity, discriminant validity, and internal reliability (Rothwell et al., 2008). The measure has found sufficient reliability in studies with Chinese university student samples (e.g., Cheung et al., 2018; Yizhong et al., 2017). A sample item is “I feel I could get any job so long as my skills and experience are reasonably relevant”. According to Rothwell et al. (2008), this scale is consisted of four dimensions, and usually an overall score is calculated (e.g., Capone et al., 2021; Di Fabio & Kenny, 2015). In this study, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient, composite reliability, and McDonald's omega for this scale were .83, .81, and .83, respectively. The average variance extracted was .22, which is lower than desired. This could be explained by the multi-dimensional nature of this scale.

Career distress . Career distress was measured by the nine-item scale developed by Creed et al. (2016). It has a satisfactory internal consistency and constructs validity, which was indicated by its correlations with negative affect and positive affect in the expected direction (Creed et al., 2016; Creed et al., 2017). In a study of Chinese employees, the scale has been reported to have sufficient reliability (Ma et al., 2020). A sample item is “I often feel down or depressed about selecting a career”. In this study, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient, composite reliability, and McDonald's omega for this scale were .88, .89, and .89, respectively. The average variance extracted was .48. falling slightly below the recommended level of .50. Overall speaking, the reliability of this scale is considered as acceptable (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Gender . Previous studies have shown that there are gender differences in university students’ employability (e.g., Yizhong et al., 2017), and thus gender (male = 1 and female = 0) was included as a control variable.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 displays the bivariate correlations among study variables, along with their means and standard deviations. As expected, FWS was positively correlated with CDSE (r = .48, p < .01) and perceived employability (r = .24, p < .01), while it was negatively correlated with career distress (r = − .29, p < .01). In addition, CDSE has a positive correlation with perceived employability (r = .37, p < .01), and a negative correlation with career distress (r = − .50, p < .01). These results generally support our hypothesized model.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and correlations among study variables.

	Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3
1	Future work self	3.02	.82
2	CDSE	3.36	.63	.48**
3	Perceived employability	2.79	.50	.24**	.37**
4	Career distress	3.16	.87	−.29**	−.50**	−.07

Note. N = 208. CDSE = career decision self-efficacy; SD = standard deviation.

*p < .05; **p < .01.

Analytical strategy

The hypotheses were tested by conducting structural equation modeling (SEM) using Mplus 7. In line with the conventional practice, a two-step analytical procedure was employed. First, the measurement model was examined by means of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Then, the fit of our hypothetical model was evaluated with the following statistics: chi-square value (χ²), comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). A large value of CFI (<.90) and a small value of RMSEA and SRMR (<.08) indicate a reasonable fit between the model and the data (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Hu & Bentler, 1998). The standardized path coefficients in the final model were estimated and reported.

Measurement model

In our study, the measurement model consisted of four latent variables, namely, FWS, CDSE, perceived employability, and career distress. Items under each variable were parceled by random algorithm to form three to four indicators (Little et al., 2013). This is a common technique widely used in empirical research. The results of CFA indicated that the four-factor measurement model provided an adequate fit to the data: χ² (71, N = 208) = 137.17, p < .01, CFI = .951, RMSEA = .067, and SRMR = .050. All the indicators loaded significantly at .01 level on their respective latent variables, with factor loadings ranging from .51 to .90. We then compared this model with the three-factor model (combining CDSE and FWS), the two-factor model (combining CDSE and FWS, and combining perceived employability and career distress), and the one-factor model (combining all variables). As shown in Table 2, the four-factor measurement model fit the data much better than all other models.

Table 2.

Comparison of the measurement models.

Measurement models	χ² (df)	Δχ² (df)	CFI	RMSEA	SRMR
1. Four-factor model	137.17***(71)		.951	.067	.050
2. Three-factor model	309.69***(74)	172.52***(3)	.824	.124	.077
3. Two-factor model	585.04***(76)	447.87***(5)	.621	.179	.154
4. One-factor model	705.44***(77)	568.27***(6)	.532	.198	.137

Note. To calculate Δχ², all the three models were compared with the four-factor model. CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root-mean-square residual.

***p < .001.

Hypotheses testing

Results of SEM indicated that the hypothetical model provided a satisfactory fit to the data, with χ² (83, N = 208) = 149.84, p < .01, CFI = .950, RMSEA = .062, and SRMR = .052. The standardized path coefficients in this model are displayed in Figure 1. We found that FWS was positively associated with CDSE (β = .57, p < .01). This provides support for Hypothesis 1. Besides, CDSE was positively related to perceived employability (β = .43, p < .01), and was negatively related to career distress (β = − .53, p < .01). In other words, Hypotheses 2 and 3 were also supported by our data.

Figure 1.

SEM results for the model. Note. CDSE = career decision self-efficacy.

The above results offered initial evidence for the mediating hypotheses, and established conditions for a further bootstrapping test (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). As revealed in Figure 1, FWS was not significantly related to both perceived employability and career distress (β = .04 and − .06, respectively, p > .05), suggesting that a mediation might occur. To test the mediating role of CDSE in the above relationships, the 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs) around the indirect effects were generated from 5,000 bootstrapping samples. According to Preacher and Hayes (2008), a significant mediating effect is said to occur if the 95% bias-corrected CI does not contain zero and is in the predicted direction.

The results of bootstrapping indicated a significant indirect effect of FWS on perceived employability via CDSE (.24, p < .01), and the 95% bias-corrected CI was [.09, .39]. Additionally, there was also a significant indirect effect of FWS on career distress through CDSE ( − .30, p < .01), with the 95% bias-corrected CI equal to [ − .45, − .16]. In both cases the CIs did not include zero, which implies that the mediating effects were significant. Taken the above results together, strong support was provided for both Hypotheses 4 and 5.

We also tested an alternate model with CDSE as the independent variable, perceived employability and career distress as dependent variables, and FWS as the mediator. This model has a satisfactory model fit, but CDSE is not related to FWS, suggesting no indirect effects of CDSE on perceived employability and career distress via FWS. In view of the results, the original model seems to be a better one than the alternate model.

Discussion

FWS is an emerging construct for understanding career planning and career decision-making of young adults. Some recent studies have documented its positive effects on work and career outcomes, such as increasing job search self-efficacy and promoting proactive career behaviors (Guan et al., 2014; Vucic & Bolton, 2019). In this study, we added to this line of literature by exploring the impacts of FWS on university students’ career well-being (as indicated by perceived employability and career distress) and identifying the underlying mechanism behind it. A data set collected from 208 final-year undergraduate students in China was employed for our statistical testing. The results of SEM and bootstrapping showed that FWS is positively related to perceived employability and negatively related to career distress. FWS, which enables university students envision their desirable work life in the future and motivate them to engaging in proactive career behaviors, appears to be an important factor affecting their career well-being. We further found that CDSE mediates the above relationships, which provides support for social cognitive career theory.

Theoretical implications

Our study offers several contributions to the current career research literature. First, it advances our understanding about the importance of FWS in predicting young adults’ career well-being. As pointed out by Skorikov (2007), poor career well-being could damage vocational development and career progress of young people. Although FWS has been found to be associated with some vocational and career outcomes, so far no study has examined its impacts on perceived employability and career distress, which have been considered as two main indicators of students’ career well-being (Creed & Gagliardi, 2015 and 2017). By linking FWS to these two outcomes, our study extends the earlier research and provides empirical evidence for our conceptual model.

Second, as informed by social cognitive career theory which highlights the role of CDSE, the present study explores the mechanism behind the relationships between FWS with perceived employability and career distress. The bootstrapping results indicated that CDSE served as a significant mediator in these relationships. In other words, we unveiled an underlying mechanism through which FWS exerts its effects on career well-being among university students.

Third, cultural differences were found to play a crucial role in the process of career decision-making (Cheung et al., 2020). Given that Chinese are long-term oriented and more tolerant to an unpredictable future (Xu et al., 2016), it is interesting to examine how FWS affects some career-related outcomes in the Chinese context. Our study obtains some new findings and broadens the literature on career research in a non-Western setting.

Practical implications

Our results demonstrated the importance of FWS for enhancing CDSE and career-related well-being of university students. Accordingly, career counselors and educators should pay more attention to students’ hopes and aspirations for future work life. In particular, these professionals may encourage the students to imagine their future work, explore career opportunities, and set career goals, which can raise their FWS (Cai et al., 2015). In addition, counseling intervention could also be adopted to increase FWS clarity (Taber, 2015).

Furthermore, the universities may offer more learning opportunities such as internship and work-study programs to their students. With more vocational and career exposure, the students are likely to develop positive and realistic views as regard to their future careers (Guan et al., 2017). Finally, our results also indicate that it is vital to strengthen students’ CDSE through interventions and tailor-make training, which can boost their perceived employability and lower their career distress.

Limitations and future directions

Several limitations in our study should be acknowledged. First, our respondents were recruited from a single faculty of a university in South China, and thus the generalizability of our results is restricted. Owing to cultural and institutional differences, our findings seems to be valid only for the Chinese context. Besides, due to the way we collected the data, our sample is not representative of academia in China. To overcome this issue, future studies should include respondents of different educational and cultural backgrounds. Second, our research design was cross-sectional in nature. To make solid inferences, longitudinal research design is desirable in future studies (Cooper et al., 2020). Third, the use of self-report measures may inflate the relationships that we studied due to common method variance (Cooper et al., 2020). For that reason, the results of our study should be interpreted with caution. Fourth, our conceptual model includes CDSE as the only mediator, and the results provided support for the social cognitive career theory. However, the relationships between the predictor and the outcome variables could be more complex as suggested by the theory (Lent et al., 1994). For example, another possible mediator, outcome expectations, may also have a salient role to play and thus its effect should be examined in future research. Lastly, we draw upon social cognitive career theory to explain the relationship between FWS and perceived employability, while students’ assessment of their employability could also be influenced by their motivation (Coetzee & Engelbrecht, 2020). As such, future studies could examine its possible predictors from a motivational perspective (Praskova et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2021).

Concluding remarks

The present study contributes to career literature by evaluating the effect of FWS on career well-being among university students in China. Our results showed that FWS increases their perceived employability and decreases their career distress through enhanced confidence in career decision-making. Social cognitive career theory seems to be useful in explaining the relationships among study variables. To promote students’ career well-being, it is vital for career counselors and educators to raise their FWS and CDSE. Counseling intervention, career workshop, internship, and work-study programs are conducive to the development of FWS and CDSE for the university students. Lastly, in view of our research design and the sample is not representative of academia in China, the findings cannot be extrapolated to other settings.

Footnotes

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Department of Education of Guangdong Province, (grant number 2020GXJK094).

ORCID iD

Hui Li

References

Álvarez-González

López-Miguens

M. J.

Caballero

(2017). Perceived employability in university students: Developing an integrated model. Career Development International, 22(3), 280–299. https://doi.org/10.1108/cdi-08-2016-0135

Betz

N. E.

Klein

K. L.

Taylor

K. M.

(1996). Evaluation of a short form of the career decision-making self-efficacy scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/106907279600400103

Brislin

R. W.

(1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen

K. A.

Long

J. S.

(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Sage.

Cai

Guan

Shi

Guo

Liu

Han

Jiang

Fang

Hua

(2015). Self-esteem and proactive personality as predictors of future work self and career adaptability: An examination of mediating and moderating processes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 86, 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.10.004

Capone

Marino

Park

M. S. A.

(2021). Perceived employability, academic commitment, and competency of university students during the COVID-19 pandemic: An exploratory study of student well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 788387. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.788387

Chan

S. H. J.

Chan

K. T.

(2021). The indirect effects of self–esteem and future work self on career adaptability factors: A study of Chinese undergraduate students. Journal of Employment Counseling, 58(2), 50–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/joec.12157

Cheung

Ngo

H. Y.

Leung

(2020). Predicting work volition among undergraduate students in the United States and Hong Kong. Journal of Career Development, 47(5), 565–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845318803469

Cheung

Jin

(2015). Impact of a career exploration course on career decision making, adaptability, and relational support in Hong Kong. Journal of Career Assessment, 24(3), 481–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072715599390

10.

Cheung

Jin

Cheung

C. K.

(2018). Perceived employability of nonlocal Chinese university students in Hong Kong: The impact of acculturative and vocational variables. Journal of Career Assessment, 26(1), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072716680045

11.

Chui

Ngo

H. Y.

(2022). Linking protean career orientation with career optimism: Career adaptability and career decision self-efficacy as mediators. Journal of Career Development, 49(1), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845320912526

12.

Coetzee

Engelbrecht

(2020). How employability attributes mediate the link between knowledge workers’ career adaptation concerns and their self-perceived employability. Psychological Reports, 123(4), 1005–1026. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294119844981

13.

Cooper

Eva

Fazlelahi

F. Z.

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

14.

Creed

P. A.

Gagliardi

R. E.

(2015). Career compromise, career distress, and perceptions of employability. Journal of Career Assessment, 23(1), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072714523082

15.

Creed

P. A.

Hood

(2017). Personal orientation as an antecedent to career stress and employability confidence: The intervening roles of career goal-performance discrepancy and career goal importance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 99, 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.12.007

16.

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

17.

Creed

P. A.

Klisch

(2005). Future outlook and financial strain: Testing the personal agency and latent deprivation models of unemployment and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(3), 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.10.3.251

18.

Di Fabio

Kenny

M. E.

(2015). The contributions of emotional intelligence and social support for adaptive career progress among Italian youth. Journal of Career Development, 42(1), 48–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845314533420

19.

Di Fabio

Saklofske

D. H.

(2014). Comparing ability and self-report trait emotional intelligence, fluid intelligence, and personality traits in career decision. Personality and Individual Differences, 64(1), 174–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.024

20.

Donald

W. E.

Baruch

Ashleigh

(2019). The undergraduate self-perception of employability: Human capital, careers advice, and career ownership. Studies in Higher Education, 44(4), 599–614. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1387107

21.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

22.

Guan

Guo

Bond

M. H.

Cai

Zhou

Zhu

Wang

Liu

Wang

(2014). New job market entrants’ future work self, career adaptability and job search outcomes: Examining mediating and moderating models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(1), 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.05.003

23.

Guan

Zhuang

Cai

Ding

Wang

Huang

Lai

(2017). Modeling dynamics in career construction: Reciprocal relationship between future work self and career exploration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 101, 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.04.003

24.

Hartman

R. O.

Betz

N. E.

(2007). The five-factor model and career self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 15(2), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072706298011

25.

E. S. C.

Sum

K. W.

(2018). Construction and validation of the career and educational decision self-efficacy inventory for secondary students (CEDSIS). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36(2), 162–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916674135

26.

Hou

Liu

(2014). Effect of proactive personality and decision-making self-efficacy on career adaptability among Chinese graduates. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 42(6), 903–912. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.6.903

27.

Bentler

P. M.

(1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424

28.

Huang

J. T.

(2015). Hardiness, perceived employability, and career decision self-efficacy among Taiwanese college students. Journal of Career Development, 42(4), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845314562960

29.

Kao

K. Y.

Hsu

H. H.

Rogers

Lin

M. T.

Lee

H. T.

Lian

(2022). I see my future!: Linking mentoring, future work selves, achievement orientation to job search behaviors. Journal of Career Development, 49(1), 232–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845320926571

30.

Kim

Jang

S. H.

Jung

S. H.

Lee

B. H.

Puig

Lee

S. M.

(2014). A moderated mediation model of planned happenstance skills, career engagement, career decision self-efficacy, and career decision certainty. The Career Development Quarterly, 62(1), 56–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2014.00070.x

31.

Lam

Santos

(2017). The impact of a college career intervention program on career decision self-efficacy, career indecision, and decision-making difficulties. Journal of Career Assessment, 26(3), 425–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072717714539

32.

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

33.

Ngo

H. Y.

Cheung

(2019). Linking protean career orientation and career decidedness: The mediating role of career decision self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 115, 103322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103322

34.

Lim

V. K.

Loo

G. L.

(2003). Effects of parental job insecurity and parenting behaviors on youth’s self-efficacy and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(1), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-8791(02)00020-9

35.

Lin

Wang

Bamberger

P. A.

Zhang

Wang

Guo

Shi

Zhang

(2016). Leading future orientations for current effectiveness: The role of engagement and supervisor coaching in linking future work self salience to job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92, 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.12.002

36.

Little

T. D.

Rhemtulla

Gibson

Schoemann

A. M.

(2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one? Psychological Methods, 18(3), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033266

37.

W. C.

(2020). Future work-self salience and proactive career behavior among college student-athletes in Taiwan: A career construction model of adaptation. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 27, 100259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2020.100259

38.

Ganegoda

D. B.

Chen

Z. X.

Jiang

Dong

(2020). Effects of perceived overqualification on career distress and career planning: Mediating role of career identity and moderating role of leader humility. Human Resource Management, 59(6), 521–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22009

39.

Nilforooshan

(2020). From adaptivity to adaptation: Examining the career construction model of adaptation. The Career Development Quarterly, 68(2), 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12216

40.

Penn

L. T.

Lent

R. W.

(2018). The joint roles of career decision self-efficacy and personality traits in the prediction of career decidedness and decisional difficulty. Journal of Career Assessment, 27(3), 457–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072718758296

41.

Praskova

Creed

P. A.

Hood

(2015). Career identity and the complex mediating relationships between career preparatory actions and career progress markers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 87, 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.01.001

42.

Praskova

McPeake

(2022). Career goal discrepancy, career distress, and goal adjustment: Testing a dual moderated process model in young adults. Journal of Career Assessment, 30(4), 615–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727211063372

43.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.40.3.879

44.

Qenani

Macdougall

Sexton

(2014). An empirical study of self-perceived employability: Improving the prospects for student employment success in an uncertain environment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(3), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787414544875

45.

Ridner

S. H.

(2004). Psychological distress: Concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 45(5), 536–545. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02938.x

46.

Rothwell

Herbert

Rothwell

(2008). Self-perceived employability: Construction and initial validation of a scale for university students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.12.001

47.

Rottinghaus

P. J.

Jenkins

Jantzer

A. M.

(2009). Relation of depression and affectivity to career decision status and self-efficacy in college students. Journal of Career Assessment, 17(3), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072708330463

48.

Santos

Wang

Lewis

(2018). Emotional intelligence and career decision-making difficulties: The mediating role of career decision self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 107, 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.05.008

49.

Sawitri

D. R.

Creed

P. A.

Perdhana

M. S.

(2021). The discrepancies between individual-set and parent-set career goals scale: Development and initial validation. Journal of Career Development, 48(5), 654–669. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845320901795

50.

Shin

Y. J.

Lee

J. Y.

(2017). Predictors of career decision self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 26(2), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072717692981

51.

Skorikov

(2007). Continuity in adolescent career preparation and its effects on adjustment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70(1), 8–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2006.04.007

52.

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

53.

Taber

B. J.

(2015). Enhancing future time perspective and exploring occupational possible selves. In Hartung

P. J.

Savickas

M. L.

Walsh

W. B.

(Eds.), APA Handbook of career intervention, volume 2: Applications (pp. 101–111). American Psychological Association.

54.

Taber

B. J.

Blankemeyer

(2015). Future work self and career adaptability in the prediction of proactive career behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 86, 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.10.005

55.

Taylor

K. M.

Betz

N. E.

(1983). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the understanding and treatment of career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22(1), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(83)90006-4

56.

Vucic

Bolton

L. E.

(2019). Turning ideas into actions! how research on identity, psychological resources, and leadership support can inform career coaching. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 12(2), 162–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2019.1594327

57.

Walker

T. L.

Tracey

T. J.

(2012). The role of future time perspective in career decision-making. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81(2), 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.06.002

58.

Wang

(2021). Supervisory career support and well-being in Chinese healthcare workers: The mediating role of career commitment and the moderating role of future work self-salience. Sustainability, 13(10), 5572. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105572

59.

Hou

Z.-J.

Tracey

T. J.

Zhang

(2016). Variations of career decision ambiguity tolerance between China and the United States and between high school and college. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 93, 120–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.01.007

60.

Ribbens

Cheng

(2015). Variation in career and workplace attitudes by generation, gender, and culture differences in career perceptions in the United States and China. Employee Relations, 37(1), 66–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-01-2014-0005

61.

Ribbens

Morgan

C. N.

(2010). Generational differences in China: Career implications. Career Development International, 15(6), 601–620. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431011084439

62.

Yizhong

Lin

Baranchenko

Lau

C. K.

Yukhanaev

(2017). Employability and job search behavior. Employee Relations, 39(2), 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1108/er-02-2016-0042

63.

Zhang

Y. C.

Zhou

Cao

Liang

Deng

Sun

Xiong

Nie

Fang

(2019). Career-specific parenting practices and career decision-making self-efficacy among Chinese adolescents: The interactive effects of parenting practices and the mediating role of autonomy. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 363. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00363