Anticipated Multiple Role Management in Emerging Adults

Abstract

Lent and Brown presented a social cognitive career theory (SCCT) self-management process model aimed at understanding how and under what conditions individuals will navigate adaptive career behaviors. The current study tested the self-management model as applied to young peoples’ anticipated multiple role balance intentions, hypothesizing that self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations for balancing multiple life roles would predict intentions to balance multiple life roles. Given that multiple role balancing behaviors require good self-organization capacities, trait conscientiousness was incorporated into the model as a potential person input variable. Gender was also included as a person input. The best fitting model suggested that, consistent with SCCT hypotheses, self-efficacy beliefs related to role balance intentions. Outcome expectation’s relationship to intentions was smaller and did not reach statistical significance. The relation of conscientiousness to intentions was fully mediated by self-efficacy. Gender showed only a direct relation to intentions, suggesting that women have stronger intentions to balance multiple roles than do men, apart from their feelings of confidence and expected outcomes. These results suggest that interventions designed to aid multiple role balance in young women and men may usefully target their self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations for multiple role management.

Keywords

social cognitive career theory career self-management emerging adulthood multiple role management multiple role balance

Emerging adulthood is a developmental period wrought with challenges. Among these challenges is anticipating how to balance involvement across multiple life roles (Arnett, 2004; Cinamon, 2006; Kerpelman & Schvaneveldt, 1999), a phenomenon that is experienced by both genders. It is no longer the case that young women anticipate staying at home while young men solely plan to go to work (Perrone, Webb, & Blalock, 2005). In fact, many young women are sculpting futures composed of both family and work participation (among other life roles), as are many young men (Peake & Harris, 2002). How young people plan to negotiate their multiple life roles has therefore become a fruitful avenue for scholarly inquiry.

There is need for a comprehensive theoretical framework from which to conceptualize and organize inquiry around how young people navigate the process of planning for future life roles. Social cognitive career theory’s (SCCT) self-management model (Lent & Brown, 2013) offers a viable option. SCCT’s three core models (interest, choice, and performance; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994) are content related and aim to explain how individuals develop interests, make career and educational choices, and achieve performances in career and academic settings. The self-management model departs from these theoretical frameworks in that it is designed to understand the process by which people engage in adaptive career behaviors, such as career exploration and job finding. The adaptive career behaviors associated with how young people anticipate balancing multiple life roles fits nicely into the self-management framework.

SCCT’s Self-Management Model

First introduced in 1994 by Lent, Brown, and Hackett, SCCT uses core cognitive variables (self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, and goals) as well as contextual and other person factors to explain how individuals develop interests, arrive at career choices, and attain performance in school and work settings. SCCT’s self-management model is complementary to these earlier models. However, where the previous SCCT models focused on addressing such content-related questions as the types of occupations in which a person develops interest, the self-management model addresses the process of how individuals navigate adaptive career behaviors (Lent & Brown, 2013). According to SCCT’s self-management model, self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations promote intentions to engage in particular adaptive career behaviors (goals) as well as the actual enactment of these behaviors (actions). Additionally, SCCT allows for the consideration of how various person input and contextual factors serve, both directly and indirectly, to hinder or facilitate goals and actions.

Applied to the process of multiple role management, the self-management model would hypothesize that people’s level of confidence in balancing multiple life roles in adulthood (self-efficacy), plus their anticipated negative and positive consequences (outcome expectations) for balancing these roles, predicts intentions to do so in the future. SCCT’s self-management model further postulates that contextual and personality variables are linked to intentions both directly and indirectly (via their relationships with self-efficacy and outcome expectations).

Anticipated Multiple Role Management

Multiple role management has frequently been conceptualized in relation to the negotiation of work–family conflict or its converse, work–family enrichment (Allen et al., 2012; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Kulik & Liberman, 2013). A strengths-based means through which to conceptualize multiple role management is via balance. Balancing multiple roles reflects an active process of organizing life roles in a fashion that is satisfactory to the individual (Frone, 2003; Greenhaus & Allen, 2006; Greenhaus, Collins, & Shaw, 2003; Grzywacz & Carlson, 2007; Marks & MacDermid, 1996). Therefore, congruent with the counseling psychology tradition from which SCCT was developed, the adaptive strengths-based conceptualization of management via balancing multiple roles (as opposed to decreasing conflict) is used here.

Given today’s dynamic workforce, more and more individuals are concerned with finding harmony across multiple roles in addition to those associated with work and family (Halpern, 2005). In addition to established adult workers, many emerging adults are exploring how they will one day balance the demands of multiple roles (Arnett, 2004; Lopez, McDermott, & Fons-Scheyd, 2013). Anticipated multiple role balance is thus a prime example of an adaptive career behavior, whereby young people engage in an active process of conceptualizing and organizing how they will one day balance their future life roles.

There have been some prior theoretical attempts to organize inquiry on multiple role conflict and balance. For example, the multiple role realism model was designed to explain how young women plan for multiple role balance via three core variables: (a) attitudes toward multiple role planning, (b) multiple role knowledge, and (c) multiple role planning (Weitzman, 1994; Weitzman & Fitzgerald, 1996). Unfortunately, this model focused only on women’s work–family planning behaviors, does not account for key contextual or cognitive variables, and does not appear to have generated much research. Hence, there is a need for a comprehensive model that might both direct future research and provide implications for practice that are salient to both men and women. The SCCT self-management model may be particularly appropriate in this capacity, as it is based on prior SCCT models that have generated a large body of research and have received extensive application in educational and career arenas (see Brown & Lent, 2016).

Another limitation of the existing literature is that most research on multiple roles has focused only on work–family role balance, conflict, or enrichment, thereby neglecting other roles in which individuals may engage across the life span (e.g., leisurite, friend; Super, 1990). We agree with calls to incorporate a more diverse set of roles into role balance research (Kulik, Shilo-Levin, & Liberman, 2015; Steinberg, True, & Russo, 2004).

Person Variables

As noted above, a unique feature of the SCCT self-management model is the inclusion of person and contextual variables in addition to the three core cognitive constructs of self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and goals. These additional person and contextual variables may aid understanding of the conditions under which engagement in adaptive career behaviors may be promoted or, conversely, stalled. One important person variable is gender.

Consistent gender differences have been reported relative to managing work and family roles (McElwain, Korabik, & Rosin, 2005). For example, young women have been found to report less self-efficacy for handling work and family roles than their male counterparts (Cinamon, 2006). Young women versus young men also report being more likely to have thought about and decided on participation in the family role (Friedman & Weissbrod, 2005); they also report more worry about how they will manage multiple roles in the future (Orrange, 2003). Finally, although men and women both anticipate involvement in family and work roles, men continue to adhere to more traditional role participation, whereas women anticipate more equally balanced participation across these roles (Kerpelman & Schvaneveldt, 1999).

SCCT may help to explain the development of sex differences in role balance expectations and behaviors. For example, sex differences in self-efficacy for managing work–family conflict have already been reported in university students (Cinamon, 2006). SCCT hypothesizes that such sex differences in self-efficacy should be associated with sex differences in intentions, although the literature does not seem to support sex differences in intentions at the bivariate level (Friedman & Weissbrod, 2005; Orrange, 2003). The full SCCT self-management model that includes outcome expectations as well as self-efficacy beliefs as predictors of intentions might provide a fuller account of the relationships between gender and multiple role balance intentions (MRBIs).

In addition to the potential gender influences, other person-specific variables merit consideration for their possible impact on anticipatory balancing behaviors. For instance, since the current literature on emerging adulthood emphasizes the importance of planning, the personality variable of conscientiousness deserves attention in the role balance literature. Trait conscientiousness, one of the five Big Five personality traits, reflects a high level of dependability, reliability, organization, and planfulness (Brown & Hirschi, 2013). The core features of this trait suggest that it may facilitate individuals’ role balance planning behaviors. Conscientiousness and multiple role balance have been widely studied, although predominantly via the work–family conflict/enrichment literature. Findings have indicated that conscientiousness is inversely related to work–family conflict and may moderate the relationships between role clarity/ambiguity and conflict (Brock & Allen, 2003; DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Wayne, Mosisca, & Fleeson, 2004). These findings suggest that conscientiousness may also play an integral role in the role balance process.

The Current Study

The primary aims of the current study are twofold: (a) to test the SCCT self-management model as it applies to young people’s anticipated multiple role management and (b) to explore the role of gender and conscientiousness as person inputs in the SCCT model.

Figure 1 displays the SCCT model that was tested in this study. Consistent with the SCCT self-management model, we hypothesized that young adults’ role balance self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations would predict their role balance intentions and that self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations would be related. In relation to gender and conscientiousness, we predicted (consistent with SCCT) that the relations of these two exogenous variables to role balance intentions would be mediated by self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations. However, we did not hypothesize whether mediation would be full or partial and, therefore, tested four versions of the mediated model.

Figure 1.
Social cognitive career theory model of anticipated multiple role management.

The first and most parsimonious model (Model 1) was a fully mediated model in which the direct paths from the exogenous variables to intentions were fixed to 0, while the paths from the exogenous variables to self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations were freed. The second model (Model 2) was a partial mediation model hypothesizing partial mediation for gender only. Thus, the path from gender to intentions was freed, while the path from conscientiousness remained fixed to 0. The third model (Model 3) was a partial mediation model for conscientiousness only, in which the paths from conscientiousness to intentions, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations were freed, while the path from gender to intentions was fixed to 0. The fourth and most complex model (Model 4) was a complete partial mediation model in which the paths from the two exogenous variables to intentions, self-efficacy beliefs, and outcome expectations were all freed to be estimated. None of the models contained a path between gender and conscientiousness (the path was fixed to 0) because there appears to be no reliable sex differences in conscientiousness (Benet-Martinez & John, 1998; Borkenau & Ostendorf, 1990).

Method

Participants and Procedure

Emerging adults were first recruited to participate in the study via Facebook advertisements posted by research confederates as well as on group pages designed to encourage research participation. In addition, Craig’s List advertisements were placed to recruit participants across major U.S. cities and areas with large undergraduate institutions. However, these procedures failed to yield a sufficient number of male participants, resulting in an unbalanced number of men (n = 20) and women (n = 74). Additional male participants were recruited via e-mail requests and word of mouth sent by research confederates to their undergraduate institution’s clubs and organizations as well as students at a local community college; snowball sampling was used in that these individuals were asked to continue forwarding the recruitment information to others they thought would be interested.

During recruitment, participants were told that they were being recruited to participate in a study investigating how young people feel about balancing multiple life roles in the future. Participants received an e-mail link which routed them to study materials. Interested participants were directed to an informed consent document, which notified them of the purpose of the study, outlined all eligibility requirements and privacy procedures, and provided directions for entering into a drawing for a US$25.00 Amazon gift card upon completion of survey materials. In order to participate, individuals had to be between the ages of 18 and 25, proficient with the English language, and willing to participate voluntarily. To indicate consent, participants were instructed to select the “I consent” option, which then forwarded them to the study materials.

Of the 307 total surveys initiated electronically, 171 were eliminated from analysis due to either substantial missing data or participants indicating their age was over the desired range of 18–25. Thus, data from 136 participants were retained for analysis. For the few missing responses in the remaining data, mean imputation was employed (e.g., when fewer than 20% of item responses for a given measure were missing, the mean of indicated responses was used). Missing responses were typically found on the Conscientiousness subscale of the 44-item Big Five Inventory (BFI), the last of the measures participants were asked to complete.

The final sample was compromised of 74 women (54%) and 62 men (46%) with an average age of 21.8 years (SD = 2.4). College students comprised 44.1% (n = 60) of the sample (n = 24 freshmen, n = 20 sophomores, n = 9 juniors, and n = 7 seniors). Graduate students accounted for 21.3% of the sample (n = 29). Forty-seven (34.6%) reported not currently being enrolled in a college or university. Regarding employment status, 39% (n = 53) reporting being employed full-time, 37.5% (n = 51) part-time, and 23.5% (n = 32) as not currently employed. A small number (n = 7, 5.1%) of participants reported their relationship status as married; the remainder identified as other (n = 5, 3.7%) or single (n = 124, 91.2%).

Instruments

Demographic Questionnaire

Participants first completed a demographic questionnaire as part of the study materials. This demographic questionnaire was developed for the study and consisted of questions asking participants to specify the following: age, gender (male or female), partnership status (married, single, or other), college enrollment status (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, graduate student, or not a student), and employment status (full-time, part-time, or not employed). Gender was dummy coded; 1 = female; 2 = male.

Multiple role balance self-efficacy (MRBSE)

The MRBSE Scale was developed for this study because we could find no measures in the literature to measure self-efficacy for multiple role balance (as opposed to work–family role balance or conflict). A search of the literature suggested five major life roles in which individuals may engage during their lifetimes (i.e., spouse/partner, parent, leisurite, friend, and worker). The MRBSE Scale consists of 10 items that ask people to rate their confidence (1 = not at all confident, 5 = very confident) in their abilities to balance paired (e.g., spouse/partner and worker) life roles. A mean score was calculated by averaging confidence ratings across the 10 items. The MRBSE Scale also initially included another 10 items that asked respondents to rate their confidence (1 = not at all confident, 5 = very confident) that they could manage conflict between the same set of paired roles. However, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using a subset of the sample (n = 97) suggested that participants could not empirically distinguish between balancing roles and managing conflict between them, despite the conceptual distinction that has been suggested in the literature (Grywacz & Carlson, 2007). We thus only used the balance items which a subsequent EFA (n = 136) showed to have a clear one-factor structure. Cronbach’s α obtained on the balance item scores using the entire sample was .88.

Although this method of measuring self-efficacy beliefs is somewhat unique, it allowed us to avoid item overlap with the intentions measure since a more traditional way of measuring self-efficacy (confidence in domain specific tasks) might have resulted in the same tasks associated with intentions (intentions to engage in domain specific tasks). The method also seemed like a direct way of measuring self-efficacy for balancing multiple roles. The pattern of bivariate correlations obtained in this study provides preliminary validity evidence on the MRBSE (i.e., positive correlations with measures of outcome expectations and intentions, with the latter probably less inflated than would have been obtained with measures containing overlapping item content).

Multiple role balance outcome expectations (MRBOE)

The MRBOE Scale was also developed for this study and contains 17 items that reflect different types of negative and positive outcomes that may be associated with role balance efforts. Item content was based on a review of the literature on balancing multiple roles. Participants were asked to indicate how likely they thought a given outcome would occur should they try to manage multiple roles (e.g., “I would become exhausted,” “I would feel proud of my efforts,” “I would experience conflict with important others in my life”). Likelihood was indicated on a 5-point (1 = not at all likely, 5 = very likely) scale. An EFA with an oblique rotation (n = 136) suggested two underlying factors, positive outcome expectations and negative outcomes expectations. We, therefore, created separate scales for positive and negative outcome expectations, but the intercorrelation between scores on these two scales was so high (r = −.92), that we combined them into a single scale, with the negative outcome expectations reverse coded. Mean scores were obtained by averaging ratings of the 17 items. The internal consistency estimate for MRBOE scores in this sample of emerging adults was acceptable (α = .79). Scores on this measure correlated with both self-efficacy beliefs and intentions, thus providing preliminary validity evidence on this new scale.

MRBIs

Ten items were written to assess young people’s intentions to engage in balancing actions. Participants were instructed to indicate, “To what degree do you intend to do the following ….” Example items include “Talk to others about strategies for how to balance your multiple life roles,” “try out some ways to balance multiple roles,” and “make changes in how you balance from learning strategies that work and do not work for you.” Items were answered on a 5-point (1 = do not anticipate doing this, 5 = strongly anticipate doing this) scale. An EFA on this scale (n = 136) yielded a single-factor solution with all items loading saliently on this factor. Cronbach’s α for MRBI scores in this sample was .83. The pattern of bivariate correlations obtained in this study supports the validity of this scale (i.e., positive correlations with role balance self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations).

Conscientiousness

The 44-item BFI (Benet-Martinez & John, 1998; John, Donahue, & Kettle, 1991; Rammstedt & John, 2007) was administered, but only the 9 item Conscientiousness subscale was used in this study. Items represent characteristics associated with conscientiousness (e.g., “does a thorough job is a reliable worker”) and participants rate the degree to which they disagree or agree that they have each characteristic (1 = disagree strongly, 5 = agree strongly). Prior internal consistency estimates have ranged from .77 to .80 (Benet-Martinez & John, 1998; Extremara & Fernández-Berrocal, 2005). The internal consistency estimate in our sample was .76. The BFI has shown a clear five-factor structure, robust convergence with other, more extensive Big Five measures (including alternative measures of conscientiousness), and high self-peer report agreement (Benet-Martinez & John, 1998; Soto & John, 2009; Soto, John, Gosling, & Potter, 2008).

Data Analysis

Path analyses with robust maximum likelihood estimation were conducted using LISREL 8.8. to test the four models: (a) Model 1: full mediation for both gender and conscientiousness, (b) Model 2: partial mediation for gender only, (c) Model 3: partial mediation for conscientiousness only, and (d) Model 4: partial mediation for both gender and conscientiousness. Robust maximum likelihood estimation was used to control for bias associated with multivariate nonnormality (Bryant & Satorra, 2012).

Fit of the models was evaluated via widely used thresholds for determining adequacy of model-data fit (Bentler, 1990; Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Fit was determined to be acceptable if absolute fit indices (root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] and standardized root mean square residual [SRMR]) were under .08 and relative fit indices (nonnormed fit index [NNFI] and comparative fit index [CFI]) exceeded .90 (Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Good fit is indicated when the absolute fit indices fall at .05 and below, and the relative fit indices exceed .95 (Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Hu & Bentler, 1999). The magnitude of the standardized path estimates was also evaluated to determine model fit. After identifying the best fitting model, bootstrapping analysis was conducted (Bryant & Satorra, 2012). Using 5,000 empirically generated bootstrap samples, 95% biased corrected confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each estimated parameter within the model (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).

Results

Intercorrelations among study variables were largely as expected (see Table 1). That is, self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations for balancing multiple roles were moderately, positively correlated (r = .38, p < .05). Self-efficacy and outcome expectations each produced similar correlations with intentions (r = .20 and .22, respectively, p <.05), conscientiousness related positively to self-efficacy (r = .40, p < .05), outcome expectations (r = 33, p < .05), and intentions (r = .20, p < .05). Gender produced small, nonsignificant relations with self-efficacy and outcome expectations (r = .10 and .05, respectively) and a significant, though small, negative correlation with intentions (r = −.22, p < .05), indicating that men had weaker intentions to balance multiple roles than did women.

Table 1.
Intercorrelations, Descriptive Statistics, and Internal Consistencies for Observed Variables.

Conscientiousness Gender SE Balance Outcome Expectations Intentions

Conscientiousness

Gender −0.08

SE for balancing 0.40* .10

Outcome expectations 0.33* .06 0.38*

Intentions 0.20* −.22 0.29* 0.22*

Cronbach’s α 0.76 — 0.88 0.79 0.83

Mean (SD) 3.71 (.63) — 3.60 (.74) 3.44 (.52) 3.37 (.69)

Female (SD) 3.75 (.68) — 3.53 (.71) 3.41 (.49) 3.51 (.71)

Male (SD) 3.66 (.56) — 3.67 (.76) 3.47 (.56) 3.20 (.63)

p < 0.05.

Path Analysis

Results of the four model tests (see Table 2) suggested that two models fit the data equally well—the fully mediated model (Model 4) and the model that hypothesized full mediation for conscientiousness and partial mediation for gender (Model 2). All fit indices suggested perfect fit for both models. Further, the χ² difference test between these two models was not significant (Δχ² ₍₁₎ = .18, p = .91) and change in CFI values (0.00) suggested that the more complex fully mediated model (Model 4) did not show improved fit over the more parsimonious Model 2.

Table 2.
Fit Indices and χ² Difference Results for Tested Models.

Model df χ² (sig) RMSEA SRMR CFI NNFI Δdf Δχ² (sig) ΔCFI

Model 1 (full mediation of conscientiousness and gender) 3 9.83 (0.02) .13 .07 0.91 0.69 2 9.83 (0.01) .09

Model 2 (partial mediation of gender only) 2 0.18 (0.91) .00 .00 1.00 1.00 2 0.18 (0.91) .00

Model 3 (partial mediation of conscientiousness only) 2 10.07 (0.00) .17 .06 0.89 0.47 2 10.07 (0.00) .11

Model 4 (partial mediation of conscientiousness and gender) 1 0.00 .00 .00 1.00 1.00

Trimmed model 4 3.18 (0.53) .00 .04 1.00 1.00 3 3.18 .00

Note.* The ▵χ² and ΔCFI values in each row compare that model to Model 4.

Inspection of the standardized path coefficients in Model 2 (see Figure 2) indicated, as hypothesized, that the paths from self-efficacy to outcome expectations (β = .29) and intentions (β = .26) were each significant (p < .05), although the path from outcome expectations to intentions was not significant (β = .13, p < .06). The paths from conscientiousness to self-efficacy (β = .40) and outcome expectations (β = .21) were also significant (p < .05). Neither the paths from gender to self-efficacy beliefs (β = .12) nor outcome expectations (β = .05) were significant, though the direct path from gender to intentions was significant (β = −.26, p < .05).

Figure 2.
Partial mediation of gender and full mediation of conscientiousness with standardized path coefficients (Model 2).

In order to obtain more conservative path coefficient estimates and standard errors, bootstrapping analysis using 5,000 bias-corrected samples was conducted. Results were quite consistent with the Maximum Likelihood results. This analysis showed that the indirect path of conscientiousness to intentions through self-efficacy was significant (β = .10, 95% CI [.01, .24]), while the indirect path through outcome expectations was not (β = .05, 95% CI [−.01, .15]). However, the path from conscientiousness to outcome expectations via self-efficacy was significant (β = .09, 95% CI [.02, .17]). Neither the indirect path of gender to intentions via self-efficacy (β = .01, 95% CI [−0.04, .06]) nor outcome expectations (β = .03, 95% CI [−.03, .09]) was significant.

In sum, although the model hypothesizing full mediation for conscientiousness and partial mediation for gender fit the data well according to standard fit indices, initial parameter estimates and bootstrap results suggested that the relation of gender to intentions may be more direct than mediated by self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations. Thus, we created a trimmed model that fixed the paths from gender to outcome expectations and self-efficacy beliefs to 0. That is, in this model, the relationship of conscientiousness to intentions was fully mediated by self-efficacy and outcome expectations, while the relation of gender to intentions was unmediated (i.e., direct only).

Robust maximum likelihood estimation was again used to conduct the path analysis. Results indicated that the trimmed model provided a good fit to the data. The Satorra–Bentler χ² statistic was not significant (χ² ₍₃₎ = 3.18, p < .53), and all fit indices were acceptable (RMSEA = .00, SRMR = .01, NNFI = 1.00, and CFI = 1.00). A χ² difference test between the trimmed model and Model 2 was not significant (Δχ² ₍₃₎ = 3.18, p < .36), and there were no differences in CFI values between the two models (see Table 2). Together these two results suggest that the more complex model that hypothesized full mediation for conscientiousness and partial mediation for gender did not improve fit over that of the more parsimonious trimmed model, in which the relationship between gender and intentions was hypothesized to be direct only.

Discussion

The main purpose of this study was to test hypotheses derived from the SCCT self-management model using multiple role planning as the context for adaptive career behavior. Two potentially key person input variables, gender and conscientiousness, were also included in the model tests in order to explore their links to multiple role management intentions.

At the bivariate level, all correlations were consistent with SCCT hypotheses. In particular, trait conscientiousness was positively and moderately related to self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations for managing multiple roles in the future. Self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations were moderately and positively related to each other. Results from the path analysis suggested, consistent with the SCCT self-management model, that self-efficacy beliefs were related to role balance intentions. However, the outcome expectations–intentions path was smaller than the self-efficacy–intentions path and yielded a standardized path coefficient (β = .13) that reached an α level of .06 in the present sample.

The initial results also suggested that the relationship of conscientiousness to intentions was fully mediated by self-efficacy, while the gender–intentions relationship was partially mediated (i.e., gender showed direct and indirect paths to intentions). However, parameter estimates and results of bootstrapping analyses suggested that a more parsimonious model might fit the data as well as the more complex model. This trimmed model hypothesized that the relationship between gender and intentions is direct only (i.e., unmediated), while the relationship between conscientiousness and intentions is fully mediated by self-efficacy and outcome expectations. Results showed that the trimmed model fits the data as well as the more complex mediational model. The trimmed model, however, was a post hoc model created on the basis of the results of the primary path analyses. Thus, this model needs to be specified a priori and its fit needs to be replicated in subsequent investigations.

Although the findings regarding conscientiousness were not as we originally expected, they do suggest, consistent with SCCT, that conscientious persons have stronger intentions to balance their multiple life roles because they feel more confident (self-efficacious) in their abilities to do so. The results also suggest that this sense of confidence is associated with more positive expectations about the likely outcomes of role balancing efforts. It may be, for example, that conscientious persons have experienced more past success experiences in role balance efforts than their less conscientious peers and, therefore, have developed more robust efficacy beliefs about their future abilities. Although such an explanation is speculative at this time, it does deserve testing in future research in the role balance literature by specifying (as hypothesized by SCCT) that such learning experiences mediate the link between conscientiousness and role balance self-efficacy beliefs.

The trimmed model also suggested that the gender–intentions relationship may be more direct than indirect—that women had stronger intentions to engage in multiple role balance behaviors in the future, regardless of their feelings of efficacy or anticipated outcomes.

At least one prior study found that men tended to report stronger work–family balance self-efficacy beliefs than women (Cinamon, 2006), and other research suggested that women spend more time thinking and worrying about balancing family and work roles (Friedman & Weissbrod, 2005). We failed to find sex differences in self-efficacy beliefs when self-efficacy was measured across five different roles as opposed to just work–family roles. However, we did find that women had stronger intentions to engage in role balance behaviors, which is consistent with prior literature, showing that women spend more time than do men thinking about how they will balance future roles. Perhaps our findings regarding role balance intentions simply reflect the amount of time that women versus men spend contemplating this aspect of their futures. It may also reflect a broader phenomenon in how young men and women are socialized to anticipate multiple role involvement differently. Young men are largely socialized to value success and advancement in their careers, which is also more culturally valued and reinforced than contributions to other roles, namely, family (Evans, Carney, & Wilkinson, 2013). Consequently, our findings may reflect the ways in which young men are socialized to focus largely on one life role, whereas young women are socialized to consider other roles in their futures as well.

These initial findings may be useful for those engaged in career-life planning with emerging adults. The results supported assumptions that self-efficacy beliefs are related to role balance intentions, suggesting that interventions targeting young women’s and men’s self-efficacy beliefs for multiple role management behaviors may enhance their intentions to balance their multiple roles (as well as promote more positive outcome expectations). The findings concerning conscientiousness suggest that such interventions may be particularly necessary for less conscientious young men and women. The SCCT self-management model provides ideas for the content of such interventions, including helping persons to set reasonable and manageable role balance goals, exposing them to same-sex models who have struggled with but succeeded in their role management efforts, and attributing role balancing successes to their growing abilities (Lent & Brown, 2013).

In synthesizing the implications of this study, it is also important to consider its limitations. First, the sample size was relatively small for a path analysis. Although it was sufficient (n = 136) in light of the recommendations of 10 participants for each freed parameter (Kline, 2011; the most complex model included 14 free parameter estimates), it might have been too small to yield highly stable bootstrapping estimates (Nevitt & Hancock, 2001). Nonetheless, future research with larger samples testing a latent variable version of our trimmed model is called for since the trimmed model was developed, in part, on the basis of bootstrap analyses. Second, the study used a cross-sectional design, precluding our ability to draw causal inferences from the results. Future research should include longitudinal designs. Third, SCCT prescribes that learning experiences will mediate the relation of person and contextual variables to self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations. This link was not tested as part of this inquiry, and as such, future research should examine the potentially meaningful role of learning experiences. Next, complete demographic data on participants’ socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity were not available; this model and study findings must thus be replicated across diverse samples of emerging adults. Last, some initial validity evidence was collected on the measures created as part of this study. However, additional validity evidence needs to be gathered on each of the new instruments. Despite these limitations, the findings reported in this study suggest that the SCCT self-management model may be a useful way to organize inquiry on multiple role management.

	Conscientiousness	Gender	SE Balance	Outcome Expectations	Intentions
Conscientiousness
Gender	−0.08
SE for balancing	0.40*	.10
Outcome expectations	0.33*	.06	0.38*
Intentions	0.20*	−.22	0.29*	0.22*
Cronbach’s α	0.76	—	0.88	0.79	0.83
Mean (SD)	3.71 (.63)	—	3.60 (.74)	3.44 (.52)	3.37 (.69)
Female (SD)	3.75 (.68)	—	3.53 (.71)	3.41 (.49)	3.51 (.71)
Male (SD)	3.66 (.56)	—	3.67 (.76)	3.47 (.56)	3.20 (.63)

Model	df	χ² (sig)	RMSEA	SRMR	CFI	NNFI	Δdf	Δχ² (sig)	ΔCFI
Model 1 (full mediation of conscientiousness and gender)	3	9.83 (0.02)	.13	.07	0.91	0.69	2	9.83 (0.01)	.09
Model 2 (partial mediation of gender only)	2	0.18 (0.91)	.00	.00	1.00	1.00	2	0.18 (0.91)	.00
Model 3 (partial mediation of conscientiousness only)	2	10.07 (0.00)	.17	.06	0.89	0.47	2	10.07 (0.00)	.11
Model 4 (partial mediation of conscientiousness and gender)	1	0.00	.00	.00	1.00	1.00
Trimmed model	4	3.18 (0.53)	.00	.04	1.00	1.00	3	3.18	.00

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: Meghan Roche and Plamena Daskalova were supported by Graduate Assistantships provided by the Graduate School and the School of Education of Loyola University Chicago.

References

Allen

T. D.

Johnson

R. C.

Saboe

K. N.

Cho

Dunmani

Evans

(2012). Dispositional variables and work-family conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 17–26. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.04.004

Arnett

J. J.

(2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Benet-Martinez

John

O. P.

(1998). Los cinco grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait multimethod analysis of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 729–750. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.729

Bentler

P. M.

(1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–346. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238

Bentler

P. M.

Bonett

D. G.

(1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588

Borkenau

Ostendorf

(1990). Comparing exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: A study on the 5-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 515–524. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(90)90065-Y

Brock

C. S.

Allen

T. D.

(2003). The relationship between Big Five personality traits, negative affectivity, type A behaviors, and work family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 457–472. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00040-4

Brown

S. D.

Hirschi

(2013). Personality, career development, and occupational attainment. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 299–328). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(2016). Vocational psychology: Agency, equity, and well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 541–565. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033237

10.

Bryant

F. B.

Satorra

(2012). Principles and practice of scaled difference chi-square testing. Structural Equation Modeling, 19, 372–398. doi:10.1080/10705511.2012.687671

11.

Cinamon

R. G.

(2006). Anticipated work-family conflict: Effects of gender, self-efficacy, and family background. The Career Development Quarterly, 64. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2006.tb00152.x

12.

DeNeve

Cooper

(1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197–229. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.197

13.

Evans

A. W.

Carney

J. S.

Wilkinon

(2013). Work-life balance for men: Counseling implications. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00115.x

14.

Extremara

Fernández-Berrocal

(2005). Perceived emotional intelligence and life satisfaction: Predictive and incremental validity using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 937–948. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.03.012

15.

Friedman

S. R.

Weissbrod

C. S.

(2005). Work and family commitment and decision-making status among emerging adults. Sex Roles, 53. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-6755-2

16.

Frone

M. R.

(2003). Work–family balance. In Quick

J. C.

Tetrick

L. E.

(Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 143–162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

17.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Allen

T. D.

(2006, 3). Work–family balance: Exploration of a concept. Paper presented at the Families and Work Conference, Provo, UT.

18.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Beutell

N. J.

(1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88. doi:10.2307/258214

19.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Collins

K. M.

Shaw

J. D.

(2003). The relation between work-family balance and quality of life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 510–531. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00042-8

20.

Grzywacz

J. G.

Carlson

D. S.

(2007). Conceptualizing work-family balance: Implications for practice and research. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9, 455–471. doi:10.1177/1523422307305487

21.

Halpern

D. F.

(2005). Psychology at the intersection of work and families: Recommendations for employers, working families, and policymakers. American Psychologist, 90, 397–409. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.397

22.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Convergent criteria versus new alternations. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

23.

John

O. P.

Donahue

E. M.

Kentle

R. L.

(1991). The Big Five Inventory-Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

24.

Kerpelman

J. L.

Schvaneveldt

P. L.

(1999). Young adults’ anticipated identity importance of career, martial, and parental roles: Comparisons of men and women with difference role balance orientations. Sex Roles, 41, 189–217. doi:10.1023/A:1018802228288

25.

Kline

R. B.

(2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guildford Press.

26.

Kulik

Liberman

(2013). Work-family conflict, resources, and role set density: Assessing their effects on distress among working mothers. Journal of Career Development, 40, 445–465. doi:10.1177/0894845312467500

27.

Kulik

Shilo-Levin

Liberman

(2015). Multiple roles, role satisfaction, and sense of meaning in life: An extended examination of role enrichment theory. Journal of Career Assessment, 23, 137–151. doi:10.1177/1069072714523243

28.

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, 557–568. doi:10.1037/a0033446

29.

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, 79–122. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027

30.

Lopez

F. G.

McDermott

R. C.

Fons-Scheyd

A. L.

(2013). Profiling the multiple role planning attitudes of college women. Journal of Career Assessment, 22, 700–714. doi:10.1177/1069072713515843

31.

Marks

S. R.

MacDonald

S. M.

(1996). Multiple roles and the self: A theory of role balance. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58, 417–432. doi:10.2307/353506

32.

McElwain

A. K.

Korabik

Rosin

H. M.

(2005). An examination of gender differences in work-family conflict. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 37, 283–298. doi:10.1037/h0087263

33.

Nevitt

Hancock

G. R.

(2001). Performance of bootstrapping approaches to model test statistics and parameter standard error estimation in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 353–377. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_2

34.

Orrange

R. M.

(2003). The emerging mutable self: Gender dynamics and creative adaptations in defining work, family, and the future. Social Forces, 82, 1–34. doi:10.1353/sof.2003.0103

35.

Peake

Harris

K. L.

(2002). Young adults’ attitudes toward multiple role planning: The influences of gender, career traditionality, and marriage plans. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 405–421. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1840

36.

Perrone

K. M.

Webb

L. K.

Blalock

R. H.

(2005). The effects of role congru3ence and role conflict on work, martial, and life satisfaction. Journal of Career Development, 31. doi:10.1007/s10871-005-4737-9

37.

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, 879–891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

38.

Rammstedt

John

O. P.

(2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203–212. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001

39.

Soto

C. J.

John

O. P.

(2009). Ten facet scales for the Big Five Inventory: Convergence with NEO PI-R facets, self-peer agreement, and discriminant validity. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 84–90. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.10.002

40.

Soto

C. J.

John

O. P.

Gosling

S. D.

Potter

(2008). The developmental psychometrics of Big Five self-reports: Acquiescence, factor structure, coherence, and differentiation from ages 10 to 20. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 718–737. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.718

41.

Steinberg

J. R.

True

Russo

N. F.

(2004). Work and family roles: Selected issues. In Betz

(Ed.), Handbook of women’s psychology (pp. 652–700). Westport, CT: Praeger.

42.

Super

D. E.

(1990). A life-span life space approach to career development. In Brown

Brooks

(Eds.), Career choice and development: Applying contemporary theories to practice (2nd ed., pp. 197–261). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Boss.

43.

Wayne

J. H.

Mosisca

Fleeson

(2004). Considering the role of personality in the work family experience: Relationships of the Big Five to work family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 108–130. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00035-6

44.

Weitzman

L. M.

(1994). Multiple-role realism: A theoretical framework for the process so of planning to combine career and family roles. Applied and Preventative Psychology, 3, 15–25. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/S0962-1849(05)80105-2

45.

Weitzman

L. M.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(1996). The development and initial validation of scales to assess attitudes toward multiple role planning. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 269–284. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/106907279600400303