How and when negative mentoring experiences influence craftsmanship spirit in new apprentices: The roles of occupational identity and regulatory focus

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Although research suggests that mentors largely shape apprentices’ work attitudes and behaviors, questions remain as to how and when negative mentoring experiences can influence the formation of craftsmanship spirit among apprentices.

OBJECTIVE:

This study, grounded in social exchange theory and regulatory focus theory, proposed and empirically examined the mediating role of occupational identity and the moderating role of regulatory focus (i.e., promotion focus and prevention focus) in the relationship between negative mentoring experiences and craftsmanship spirit

METHODS:

Using three-wave data among 345 apprentices and their immediate mentor in manufacturing companies in China, we employed SPSS PROCESS macro to examine the mediating role of occupational identity and the moderating role of regulatory focus.

RESULTS:

The main results demonstrated that occupational identity partially mediated the link between negative mentoring experiences and craftsmanship spirit. Moreover, regulatory focus moderates the relationship between negative mentoring experiences and occupational identity, such that the relationship is stronger among employees with a higher prevention focus, and weaker among employees with a higher promotion focus.

CONCLUSIONS:

Organizational managers need to be aware of the negative impact of masters’ negative mentoring on apprentices’ occupational identity and craftsmanship, especially for individuals with a high prevention focus, where this negative effect is more pronounced.

Keywords

Craftsmanship spirit mentoring occupational identity promotion focus prevention focus apprenticeship

1. Introduction

The cultivation of a spirit of craftsmanship is significant for transforming and enhancing the pool of skilled talent within the manufacturing industry [1]. The craftsmanship spirit refers to a unique set of work values adopted by individuals in their current occupations, intrinsically motivating them to strive for long-term excellence and continuous improvement in their tasks [2, 3]. Previous research has shown that the development of apprentices’ craftsmanship spirit depends on the constructive leadership styles [4], such as spiritual leadership [1], servant leadership [5] and paternalistic leadership [6]. These leadership approaches are instrumental as they facilitate effective interpersonal exchanges and knowledge transfer between leaders and employees, which is essential to foster a spirit of craftsmanship [1]. While existing research has extensively examined the benefits of positive interpersonal interactions on craftsmanship spirit, the impact of interactions between mentors and apprentices has been largely overlooked [7, 8]. This is a significant oversight, as mentoring programs are crucial for enhancing an organization’s human capital and improving professional development of junior employees [9]. This implies that interactions between mentors and apprentices may also be an important factor influencing apprentices’ development of a craftsmanship spirit. However, how these interactions impact the cultivation of craftsmanship spirit remains unclear.

Negative mentoring experiences, a common dysfunctional interpersonal interaction pattern, refer to apprentices perceiving a significant mismatch between themselves and their mentors (e.g., personality clashes, divergent value systems), receiving poor guidance (e.g., sabotage by the mentor or the mentor taking credit for the apprentice’s work), or feeling neglected by their mentors (e.g., mentors being mostly unavailable or inaccessible) [10]. We consider that apprentices who experience negative mentoring may suffer damage to their occupational identification, which can, in turn, impact the development of their craftsmanship spirit. Drawing on social exchange theory [11], we theorize that negative mentoring involves mentors treating apprentices detrimentally, which leads to adverse emotional responses in apprentices, such as diminished self-confidence and reduced interest in their occupations. Consequently, apprentices are likely to reciprocate negatively, such as by reducing their pursuit of excellence in work skills. Furthermore, social exchange theory posits that an individual’s response to initiating behavior may be influenced by the characteristics of the reciprocator [12]. Therefore, we further propose that two motivational characteristics—promotion focus (sensitivity to potential acquisition opportunities and driven by the need for growth) and prevention focus (sensitivity to negative information and driven by the need for security) [13]—help explain apprentices’ identification with their occupations and subsequent levels of craftsmanship when experiencing negative mentoring.

Taking together, we integrate social exchange theory and regulatory focus theory to examine the effect of negative mentoring experience on craftsmanship spirit, as well as the mediating role of occupational identity and the moderating role of prevention focus and promotion focus. This article offers several contributions to the extant literature. By integrating social exchange theory with regulatory focus theory, our study investigates how and when negative mentoring experiences affect apprentices’ craftsmanship spirit. We investigate occupational identity as a mediating factor in the link between negative mentoring experiences and the development of the craftsmanship spirit. This approach sheds light on the adverse effects of dysfunctional mentoring relationship on prescience’s career development and contributes to the existing body of research on nature of mentoring [14]. Furthermore, by examining the role of regulatory focus as a boundary condition for the impact of negative mentoring experiences, this study addresses a current limitation in the mentoring relationships literature [15] that neglects how unique individual differences may either facilitate or hinder an apprentice’s ability to effectively cope with adverse mentoring situations. By offering organizations novel insights into the adverse effects of negative mentoring, our study may assist them in establishing useful organizational practices that mitigate these damaging and fosters employees’ craftsmanship spirit in an effective way.

1.1. Negative mentoring experiences and craftsmanship spirit

Social exchange theory [11, 16] holds that individuals engage in behaviors with the expectation of receiving rewards from others. Reciprocity and obligations within the exchange relationship foster trust and loyalty over time. However, in the course of building relationships over time, individuals will also evaluate the associated uncertainties and risks inherent in the relationship [11, 16]. Risk assessment plays a crucial role in establishing social exchange relationships, influencing attitudes and behaviors within these relationships [17].

According to social exchange theory [11, 16], the mentoring style of a supervisor or manager provides apprentices with information to assess risks and uncertainties in their interactions. Negative mentoring behaviors, such as mentor sabotage or claiming credit for the apprentice’s work, can have a series of detrimental effects on apprentices, including depression and psychological withdrawal [18]. When apprentices experience negative mentoring, they perceive higher levels of risk and uncertainty in their interactions with their mentors [19]. This perception of increased risk and uncertainty not only diminishes apprentices’ sense of obligation to reciprocate but also fosters negative beliefs and values about their occupations [20, 21].

Furthermore, Kumar [22] found that incongruent guidance and negative attitudes from mentors can elicit negative emotions in apprentices, such as avoidance, disappointment, and resentment towards both the mentor and the organization. These negative emotions, in turn, lead to a reluctance to exhibit positive work behavior. Topa and Perez-Larrazabal [23] discovered that negative mentoring experiences are detrimental to the learning of apprentices. Craftsmanship spirit, on the other hand, is growth-oriented and involves continuous learning for skill development and self-improvement [24]. Consequently, this study proposes that negative mentoring experiences hinder the development of craftsmanship spirit in individuals. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 1: Negative mentoring experiences negatively influence the craftsmanship spirit of apprentices.

1.2. The mediating role of occupational identity

Occupational identity refers to an individual’s self-identification within a specific industry or job field, encompassing their attitudes and experiences related to their perceived intrinsic value and self-image [25]. According to social identity theory, evaluations and attitudes from other group members can shape an individual’s self-image and perceived intrinsic value [26]. If a mentor takes undue credit for their apprentices’ work, this may undermine that apprentices’ self-worth and erode their occupational identity. Previous research has demonstrated that when apprentices experience negative mentoring, they tend to attribute it to their own lack of knowledge and skills. This self-attribution can hinder the development of a clear, future-oriented work identity and the setting of future goals [27, 28]. Green and Jackson [29] contend that negative mentoring experiences undermine the psychological contract between mentor and apprentice. This, in turn, negatively affects the organizational loyalty of the apprentice, impeding the development of their occupational identity.

The undermining of one’s occupational identity poses a significant risk to the organization with respect to a decline in the employee’s work performance. Employees with eroded occupational identities tend to exhibit less enthusiasm and motivation for innovation and skill enhancement. They gradually lose a sense of meaning and purpose in their work, and their intentions to quit their roles increase. Jeanson and Michinov [30] suggest that individuals with reduced occupational identity are less willing to invest additional time and effort into their work, resulting in lower levels of work engagement. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 2: Occupational identity mediates the relationship between negative mentoring experiences and their impact on levels of craftsmanship spirit.

1.3. The moderating role of regulatory focus

We propose that apprentices’ regulatory focus, specifically promotion focus and prevention focus, may influence how they process and respond to negative interactions with their supposed mentors. Regulatory focus theory suggests that individuals adjust their motivations and behaviors through two distinct foci: prevention focus and promotion focus [31 –33]. Prevention focus refers to a tendency to strive for security and safety [34]. Individuals high in prevention focus primarily employ an “avoidance” coping strategy and are sensitive to the presence or absence of negative outcomes, such as losses or the prevention of losses [33]. As an example, an apprentice with high levels of prevention focus may seek to only perform the tasks required of them rather than undertake new challenges for fear of making mistakes and receiving ensuing criticism. Conversely, promotion focus refers to a “growth” approach, where individuals consistently seek accomplishments [33]. For individuals high in promotion focus, an “approach” coping strategy dominates, and they are highly attuned to the presence or absence of positive outcomes, such as advancements or promotions.

Regulatory focus theory holds that individuals with a high promotion focus are more inclined to focus on positive information relating to personal development and pay less attention to negative messages. As such, individuals with a high promotion focus tend to approach risky and stressful situations with a positive and optimistic mindset [33]. This can effectively mitigate the detrimental impact of negative factors in the workplace on their psychological resources and self-worth, thereby reducing the adverse effects of negative mentoring experiences on their occupational identity. Moreover, individuals with a high promotion focus tend to actively seek problem-solving strategies and are willing to try various approaches when faced with challenges. Confronted with a negative mentor, such individuals are more inclined to explore different ways of addressing this challenge compared to their counterparts with a low promotion focus. Those with a low promotion focus are less inclined to adopt an approach coping strategy [31, 33]. In the face of negative mentoring experiences, such individuals are more likely to buckle under the negative emotional experiences and psychological pressure they encounter [35, 36]. Conversely, those with a high promotion focus who continually seek solutions to problems are better placed to approach negative mentoring experiences as yet another problem to solve, as opposed to perceiving it as an insurmountable challenge. This perspective enables their occupational identity to remain more resilient, as reflected in our next hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3a: Promotion focus negatively moderates the relationship between negative mentoring experiences and occupational identity. Specifically, compared to apprentices with a high promotion focus, apprentices with a low promotion focus will experience a stronger negative impact of negative mentoring experiences on their occupational identity.

In contrast to those with a high promotion focus, individuals with a high level of prevention focus are particularly sensitive to messages from their mentors, who hold greater power and/or higher status in the organization and, therefore, are in a position to affect their apprentices’ sense of belonging within the organization [37]. Individuals with a high prevention focus are especially attuned to negative messages, which reduce their sense of self-worth [33]. In encountering a negative mentor, such individuals will, more often than not, fixate on their shortcomings and question their competence and value within the organization. Their perception of themselves as insiders, as fully-fledged, valued members of the organization, diminishes. Conversely, individuals with a lower prevention focus are less attuned to negative messages from their mentors, leading to a more robust occupational identity. Based on this, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 3b: Prevention focus positively moderates the relationship between negative mentoring experiences and occupational identity. Specifically, compared to apprentices with a high prevention focus, apprentices with a low prevention focus will experience a weaker negative impact of negative mentoring experiences on their occupational identity.

Drawing on social exchange theory and our derivations of hypotheses 1–2 and 3a–3b, we propose that higher levels of prevention focus will strengthen the indirect impact of negative mentoring experiences on occupational identity and, subsequently, craftsmanship spirit. We then propose that lower levels of prevention focus will strengthen the indirect impact of negative mentoring experiences craftsmanship spirit via occupational identity. Our next set of hypotheses posit a mediated-moderation effect:

Hypothesis 4a: Promotion focus moderates the indirect effect of apprentices’ negative mentoring experiences on craftsmanship spirit via occupational identity, such that the indirect effect is stronger when levels of promotion focus are lower.

Hypothesis 4b: Prevention focus moderates the indirect effect of apprentices’ negative mentoring experiences on craftsmanship spirit via occupational identity, such that the indirect effect is stronger when levels of prevention focus are higher.

The theoretical model of this study is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model of this study.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants and procedure

We collected data from students attending various vocational colleges and their on-the-job mentors in Guangdong province in China. Vocational colleges are practical-oriented post-secondary educational institutions aimed at cultivating a competent workforce and technicians, and equipping students with necessary skill for a specific occupation [38, 39]. In China’s vocational system, apprenticeship is a crucial model for cultivating students vocational skills and employability. Under the vocational education model, students spend at least six months following mentors within enterprises to engage in workplace-based learning¹. During the period of workplace-based learning, students has the opportunity to apply skills developed during classroom training and acquire new skills directly on the job [40], and also entrusted with work tasks and responsibilities that are commensurate with the job position [39]. The workplace-based learning process in vocational education can help students transition smoothly from school to work [37], and develop a sense of whether they are the “right person for the job” [41]. Given that occupation identity and craftsmanship spirit is core variables in our study, it is important to consider vocational college students’ apprenticeship learning experiences in the workplace, which give them the opportunity to internalize job-related behaviors, attitudes, and values directed toward a specific occupation [38]. Therefore, our criteria for recruiting participants were: (1) those engaging in workplace-based learning; (2) those who has immediate mentor within enterprises; and (3) those who undertake specific job roles and responsibilities.

According to the above criteria, we recruited vocational college students in Guangdong province based on the principles of random sampling to minimize the selection bias and potential confounding effects. Before carrying out the survey, we received approval from the administrators of the schools where the students are enrolled, as well as the senior managers of their internship organizations, all of which are within manufacturing industry. Three sets of questionnaires were developed and administered at three different time points with a one-week lag. At time-point 1 (T1), we sent a web link to 450 participants who volunteered to participate in our investigation. The link brought potential participants to a webpage that outlined the overall purpose of our research and which also described the processes of data collection to ensure participant responses remained anonymous and were treated confidentially. The instruments used to measure negative mentoring experiences, regulatory focus, and control variables (i.e., demographic information) were also outlined. 410 valid questionnaires were returned after incomplete questionnaires and outliers were discarded, making for a response rate of 91.11%. A week later at time-point 2 (T2) we invited the 410 participants who had completed the T1 survey to rate their occupational identity and to supply the email addresses of their immediate mentors. We received 367 valid questionnaires at T2, making for a response rate of 89.51%. One week after T2, using the email addresses provided, we contacted the mentors of the participants at time-point 3 (T3) to rate their apprentices’ craftsmanship spirit. In total, we received 343 sets of mentor– apprentice matched responses, making for a response rate of 93.46%. Key demographic information from the final sample of apprentices was as follows: the average age was 20.18 (SD = 1.57), 57.32% were male and 65.35% were from rural areas. As an incentive, participants received CNY 10 (approximately USD 1.44) for completing each survey and received an additional CNY 10 (approximately USD 1.44) if their mentor completed the T3 survey.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Negative mentoring experiences

The negative mentoring experiences scale developed by Eby and McManus [42] was used to assess the extent of negative mentoring experiences faced by participants at T1. The negative mentoring experiences scale consists of 42 items in five dimensions with respect to participant perceptions of: (1) a mismatch between themselves and their mentor; (2) distancing behaviors by their mentor; (3) manipulative behaviors by their mentor; (4) their mentor’s lack of expertise; and (5) their mentor’s general dysfunctionality. All items were scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). Sample items for each of the five dimensions are as follows: “The personal values of my mentor are different from my own” (mismatch between the participant and their mentor); “My mentor is reluctant to talk about things that are important to me” (distancing behavior); “My mentor has deliberately misled me” (manipulative behavior); “My mentor lacks expertise in areas that are important for the type of work he/she does” (lack of mentor expertise); and “My mentor approaches tasks with a negative attitude” (general dysfunctionality). Cronbach’s α for each subscale is 0.93 (mismatch), 0.93 (distancing behavior), 0.94 (manipulative behavior), 0.92 (lack of expertise), and 0.93 (general dysfunction) and Cronbach’s α for the total scale is 0.93.

2.2.2. Regulatory focus

The degree to which participants were promotion or prevention focused were assessed at T1 using an 18-item chronic regulatory focus scale developed by Lockwood et al. [43]. The promotion focus subscale and the prevention focus subscale consisted of nine items each. Sample items include “Overall, I am more oriented toward achieving success than preventing failure” and “In general, I am focused on preventing negative events in my life”. All items were scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). In this study, Cronbach’s α was 0.95 for promotion focus and 0.94 for prevention focus.

2.2.3. Occupational identity

Occupational identity was assessed at T2 using a ten-item scale developed by Tyler and McCallum [44]. All items were scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). Sample items include “My present job makes me feel very proud”. Cronbach’s α was 0.95 for this study.

2.2.4. Craftsmanship spirit

Craftsmanship spirit was assessed at T3 using the craftsmanship spirit scale developed by Zhao et al. [45]. The scale consists of 20 items in five dimensions: continuous improvement; patience and persistence; responsibility and accountability; personal growth; and cherishing one’s reputation, with each dimension comprising four items. Sample items include “I continually seek to improve my skills every time I complete a job task” (continuous improvement); “I see my job as a duty and an obligation” (patience and persistence); “I set a higher standard for myself beyond what the organization requires” (responsibility and accountability), “If I don’t do my job well, it makes me feel bad” (personal growth), and “I adhere to my own standards without being influenced by external factors” (cherishing one’s reputation). All items were scored on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). In this study, Cronbach’s α for the total scale was 0.88 and 0.90 for continuous improvements, 0.89 for patience and persistence, 0.89 for responsibility and accountability, 0.90 for personal growth, and 0.90 for cherishing one’s reputation.

2.2.5. Control variables

To ensure our results are not influenced by individual differences that may be associated with craftsmanship spirit and negative mentoring experience, and consistent with previous research [1, 2, 4], we controlled for the potential confounding effects of apprentices’ gender (female = 1, male = 2), age (in years) and place of origin (urban = 1, rural = 2). We also controlled for the nature of enterprise where they undertook their on-the-job internships(state-owned company = 1, private enterprise = 2, Sino-foreign joint venture enterprise = 3, mixed-ownership enterprise = 4), and the types of posts they assumed (Technical research and development positions = 1; Product (production) category positions = 2; Marketing jobs = 3; Operations positions = 4; Functional positions = 5).

2.3. Analysis method

SPSS 24.0 and PROCESS macro 3.4 were used for data processing. Firstly, SPSS 24.0 was used to conduct reliability and validity tests, and to identify common method bias in our study. Secondly, SPSS 24.0 was used for our descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation analysis. Next, SPSS PROCESS macro 3.4 was used to test the focal hypotheses. In addition, bootstrapping was used to test for the mediating effect of occupational identity and the moderated mediation effects of regulatory focus on the relationships between negative mentoring experiences and craftmanship spirit.

3. Results

3.1. Common method bias test

Harman’s single-factor test was used to test for common method bias. All the original items were subjected to the factor analysis, wherein 13 factors with eigenvalues greater than one were extracted. The first factor explained 17.91% of the variation, which was below the critical value of 40%, indicating that common method bias was not a major issue.

3.2. Descriptive statistical analysis and correlation analysis

Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics (i.e., mean and standard deviations) and Pearson’s bivariate correlational coefficients for the focal variables. The results of correlation analysis shows that negative mentoring experiences were significantly and negatively associated with occupational identity (r=–0.21, p < .001) as well as craftsmanship spirit (r=–0.39, p < .001). There was a positively significant association between occupational identity and craftsmanship spirit (r = 0.44, p < .001).

Table 1.
Means, standard deviations, and correlations across study variables.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5

1.Negative mentoring experience (T1) 3.369 0.594 (.93)

2.Promotion focus (T1) 3.138 1.066 –.076 (.94)

3.Prevention focus (T1) 3.313 0.988 –.236^ .074 (.95)

4.Occupational identity (T2) 3.279 0.991 –.212^ .084 .374^ (.95)

5.Craftsmanship spirit (T3) 3.334 0.675 –.391^ .192^ .407^ .439^** (.88)

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1.Negative mentoring experience (T1)	3.369	0.594	(.93)
2.Promotion focus (T1)	3.138	1.066	–.076	(.94)
3.Prevention focus (T1)	3.313	0.988	–.236^**	.074	(.95)
4.Occupational identity (T2)	3.279	0.991	–.212^**	.084	.374^**	(.95)
5.Craftsmanship spirit (T3)	3.334	0.675	–.391^**	.192^**	.407^**	.439^**	(.88)

Note: N = 345, *p<0.05, ^**p<0.01, ^***p<0.001. Parenthesis is the Cronbach alpha’s value of variable.

3.3. Hypothesis testing

We employed PROCESS macro (Model 9) to test our moderated mediation model (Table 2). Our results indicated that negative mentoring experiences were negatively related to craftsmanship spirit (β=–0.393, SE = 0.050, p < 0.001) (see Model 4) after controlling for confounding variables (e.g., age, gender, origin of students, type of posts, and nature of enterprise), supporting Hypothesis 1. The results of our mediation model demonstrated that negative mentoring experiences were negatively related to occupational identity (β= –0.223, SE = 0.057, p < 0.001) (see Model 1), and that occupational identity was positively associated with craftsmanship spirit (β= 0.353, SE = 0.044, p < 0.001) (see Model 5). The indirect effect of negative mentoring experiences on participants’ craftsmanship spirit was significant via occupational identity (β= –.042, SE = 0.010, 95% CI = [–.078, –.013]) and the confidence interval did not include zero. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported.

Table 2.
Moderated mediation models of the relationship between negative mentoring experiences and craftmanship spirit.

Occupational identity Craftsmanship spirit

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7

Constant –0.252(0.708) –0.248(0.699) –0.169(0.664) –1.155(0.627) –1.066(0.576) –1.125(0.570) –1.053(0.558)

Age 0.022(0.037) 0.022 (0.037) 0.023(0.035) 0.047(0.033) 0.039(0.030) 0.039(0.030) 0.042(0.029)

Gender –0.058(0.325) –0.076(0.321) –0.212(0.305) 0.466(0.288) 0.486(0.264) 0.506(0.262) 0.379(0.257)

Origin of student –0.132(0.198) –0.146(0.196) –0.126(0.185) 0.143(0.175) 0.189(0.161) 0.219(0.160) 0.178(0.156)

Type of post 0.038(0.113) 0.059(0.112) 0.079(0.106) –0.175(0.100) –0.188(0.092) –0.195 (0.092) –0.158(0.090)

Nature of enterprise 0.015(0.075) –0.001(0.074) –0.016(0.070) 0.080(0.066) 0.075(0.061) 0.072(0.060) 0.057(0.059)

Negative mentoring experience (A) –0.223^(0.057) –0.207^(0.056) –0.125(0.055) –0.393^(0.050) –0.314^(0.047) –0.306^(0.047) –0.269^(0.047)

Promotion focus (B) 0.074(0.052) 0.135^(0.043)

A×B 0.137^(0.045) 0.015(0.037)

Prevention focus (C) 0.354^(0.051) 0.225^(0.046)

A×C –0.094(0.043) –0.074(0.037)

Occupational identity 0.353^(0.044) 0.341^(0.044) 0.270^(0.046)

R ² 0.047 0.077 0.170 0.168 0.300 0.320 0.349

Δ R ² 0.031^* 0.055^** 0.015* 0.154^* 0.286^* 0.302^* 0.332^*

F 2.805* 3.504^* 8.601^* 11.399^* 20.638^* 17.539^* 19.997^*

	Occupational identity	Craftsmanship spirit
Constant	–0.252(0.708)	–0.248(0.699)	–0.169(0.664)	–1.155(0.627)	–1.066(0.576)	–1.125(0.570)	–1.053(0.558)
Age	0.022(0.037)	0.022 (0.037)	0.023(0.035)	0.047(0.033)	0.039(0.030)	0.039(0.030)	0.042(0.029)
Gender	–0.058(0.325)	–0.076(0.321)	–0.212(0.305)	0.466(0.288)	0.486(0.264)	0.506(0.262)	0.379(0.257)
Origin of student	–0.132(0.198)	–0.146(0.196)	–0.126(0.185)	0.143(0.175)	0.189(0.161)	0.219(0.160)	0.178(0.156)
Type of post	0.038(0.113)	0.059(0.112)	0.079(0.106)	–0.175(0.100)	–0.188*(0.092)	–0.195* (0.092)	–0.158(0.090)
Nature of enterprise	0.015(0.075)	–0.001(0.074)	–0.016(0.070)	0.080(0.066)	0.075(0.061)	0.072(0.060)	0.057(0.059)
Negative mentoring experience (A)	–0.223^***(0.057)	–0.207^***(0.056)	–0.125*(0.055)	–0.393^***(0.050)	–0.314^***(0.047)	–0.306^***(0.047)	–0.269^***(0.047)
Promotion focus (B)		0.074(0.052)				0.135^**(0.043)
A×B		0.137^**(0.045)				0.015(0.037)
Prevention focus (C)			0.354^***(0.051)				0.225^***(0.046)
A×C			–0.094*(0.043)				–0.074*(0.037)
Occupational identity					0.353^***(0.044)	0.341^***(0.044)	0.270^***(0.046)
R ²	0.047	0.077	0.170	0.168	0.300	0.320	0.349
Δ R ²	0.031^***	0.055^**	0.015*	0.154^***	0.286^***	0.302^***	0.332^***
F	2.805*	3.504^***	8.601^***	11.399^***	20.638^***	17.539^***	19.997^***

Note. N = 345. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported and corresponding standard errors are reported in parentheses. *p<.05, ^**p<.01, ^***p<.001.

Hypothesis 3a predicted that promotion focus moderates the relationship between experiencing negative mentoring and occupational identity. Model 2 demonstrated that the interaction between experiencing negative mentoring and promotion focus positively predicted occupational identity (β= 0.137, SE = 0.045, p = 0.003), supporting Hypothesis 3a. We also followed the recommendation by Preacher et al. (2006) to test the simple slopes of the moderating effect. We first classified promotion focus (i.e., the moderator) into a high group (M + 1 SD) and a low group (M – 1 SD), and then tested the significance level of those simple slopes. Figure 2 presents the moderating effect of promotion focus on the relationship between negative mentoring experience and occupational identity. The examination of the simple slopes reveals that the slope is significant for those with low promotion focus (β= –0.08, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001) and insignificant for those with high promotion focus (β= 0.01, SE = 0.02, ns), supporting Hypothesis 3a.

Figure 2.

Moderating role of promotion focus on the relationship between negative mentoring experience and occupational identity.

We further tested the conditional indirect effects of negative mentoring experience on craftsmanship spirit through occupational identity conditional on promotion focus. As shown in Table 3, the indirect effect of negative mentoring experience on craftsmanship spirit via occupational identity was negatively insignificant when promotion focus was high (β= –0.025, SE = 0.029, 95% CI[–0.086, 0.028]), whereas this relationship was significant when promotion focus was low (β= –0.120, SE = 0.044, 95% CI[–0.215,–0.040]). Taken together, Hypothesis 4a was supported.

Table 3.

Results of simple slope analyses.

Interaction	Moderator condition	Direct effect	95% CI	Mediating effect	95% CI
Negative mentoring experience × Promotion focus	Low level of promotion focus (Mean – 1 SD)	–0.341^***(0.069)	[–0.478, –0.205]	–0.120(0.044)	[–0.215, –0.040]
	Medium level of promotion focus	–0.207^***(0.056)	[–0.318, –0.096]	–0.073(0.028)	[–0.135, –0.023]
	High level of promotion focus (Mean + 1 SD)	–0.072(0.074)	[–0.218, 0.074]	–0.025(0.029)	[–0.086, 0.028]
Negative mentoring experience × Prevention focus	Low level of prevention f ocus (Mean – 1 SD)	–0.032(0.073)	[–0.175, 0.111]	–0.011(0.034)	[–0.079, 0.059]
	Medium level of prevention focus	–0.125*(0.055)	[–0.233, –0.017]	–0.044(0.025)	[–0.099, 0.002]
	High level of prevention focus (Mean + 1 SD)	–0.218^***(0.066)	[–0.348, –0.088]	–0.077(0.031)	[–0.146, –0.020]

Hypotheses 3b and 4b were tested using a mediated moderation model by employing prevention focus as a moderator. Model 3 indicates that the interaction between negative mentoring experience and prevention focus negatively predicts occupational identity (β= –0.094, SE = 0.043, p = 0.029), supporting Hypothesis 3b. In addition, the relationship between negative mentoring experience and occupational identity was negatively significant (β= –0.08, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001, see Figure 3) when prevention focus was high, whereas this relationship was insignificant when prevention focus was low (β= 0.001, SE = 0.024, ns).

Figure 3.

Moderating role of prevention focus on the relationship between negative mentoring experience and occupational identity.

We further tested the conditional indirect effects of negative mentoring experience on craftsmanship spirit through occupational identity conditional on prevention focus. As shown in Table 3, the indirect effect of negative mentoring experience on craftsmanship spirit via occupational identity was negatively significant when prevention focus was high (β= –0.077, SE = 0.031, 95% CI[–0.146,–0.020]), whereas this relationship was insignificant when prevention focus was low (β= –0.011, SE = 0.034, 95% CI[–0.079, 0.059]). Taken together, Hypothesis 4b was supported.

4. Discussion

This study adopts a framework grounded in social exchange theory and regulatory focus theory to investigate how and when negative mentoring experiences influence apprentices’ craftsmanship spirit. Data was collected from vocational students(apprentices) and their immediate mentors in the manufacturing industry through questionnaire surveys at three different time points. The findings demonstrate that occupational identity serves as a mediator between negative mentoring experiences and craftsmanship spirit. Furthermore, promotion focus buffers the negative impact of negative mentoring experiences on craftsmanship spirit by influencing occupational identity. Conversely, prevention focus strengthens the negative impact of negative mentoring experiences on craftsmanship spirit through its influence on occupational identity.

4.1. The role of occupational identity in linking negative mentoring experiences to craftsmanship spirit

First, this study contributes to a better understanding of the relationship between negative mentoring experiences and craftsmanship spirit by theorizing and empirically supporting the mediating role of occupational identity. Consistent with prior studies, negative evaluations from mentors can lead their apprentices to feel unappreciated and alienated, leading to a reduction in self-value and intrinsic occupational identity, which may give rise to negative behaviors and attitudes at work [46, 47]. Dawning on social exchange theory [11, 16], negative mentoring experiences hinder newcomers from receiving material or psychological support from their mentors, leading to perceptions of neglect and frustration. This psychological setback impedes apprentices from developing enthusiasm for their occupation, resulting in a loss of confidence in their work and career prospects and undermining their sense of occupational identity [48].

When work identity and self-identity are misaligned, apprentices may struggle to derive a sense of accomplishment in their jobs. This may lead to a general reluctance to invest additional time and effort into their work, which negatively impacts their work motivation and engagement [49], and undermines the formation of a craftsmanship spirit. Our findings also align with the principles of cognitive dissonance theory [50] which holds that as individuals experience increasingly negative mentoring experiences, their self-esteem derived from their occupation weakens, leading to cognitive dissonance. Such employees tend to become increasingly disengaged from their work [50] since their self-worth is consistently being undermined during work. Therefore, we expand the current understanding of the mechanisms underlying the effect of negative mentoring experiences on craftsmanship spirit by articulating the role of occupational identity.

4.2. The boundary conditions of occupational identity

Our results also offer important insights into the condition under which negative mentoring experiences exert a stronger or weaker impact on apprentices’ occupational identity and subsequent craftsmanship spirit. Regulatory focus theory suggests that different regulatory foci lead to variations in individuals’ emotions, decision-making, and behavioral performance [51]. Previous empirical studies have found that regulatory focus plays a moderating role in the relationship between abusive supervision and organizational citizenship behavior [52]. The data analysis conducted in this study yielded similar conclusions. When individuals with a promotion focus encounter negative mentoring experiences, they tend to focus on the positives and approach these experiences as opportunities for growth. As such, the negative emotions that are typically associated with perceived negative mentoring experiences [14] are attenuated [53] and negative mentoring experiences generally pose less risk to their occupational identity and craftsmanship spirit. Conversely, individuals with a low promotion focus adopt relatively low motivational strategies [54], making it challenging for them to derive a sense of achievement from mastery experiences and in forming their occupational identity. Because they are more susceptible to psychological pressure and emotional exhaustion, negative mentoring experiences have more of a damaging effect on their occupational identity and impair the formation of craftsmanship spirit.

Further, individuals with a prevention focus who tend to hone in on negative outcomes and are anxious to avoid failure are particularly susceptible to adverse effects of negative mentoring experiences. They experience negative mentoring as a process of personal devaluation, leading to increased psychological pressure and depression [55, 56], which may culminate in a sense of alienation from their occupation and further harm craftsmanship spirit. Negative mentoring experiences have a detrimental effect on individuals with a prevention focus, who are more inclined to passively cope with negative messaging from their mentors rather than actively seeking solutions to overcome the negative situation [57]. Conversely, the occupational identity and craftsmanship spirit of individuals with a lower prevention focus is less likely to be jeopardized by negative mentoring experiences. Taken these together, our findings extend the mentoring relationships literature by providing a better understanding of apprentices’ different responses to negative mentoring experiences and uncovering how and when negative mentoring experiences shape apprentices’ craftsmanship spirit.

4.3. Limitations and future research directions

This study is not without its limitations. Firstly, the data for this study were collected from manufacturing companies, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other industries. Future studies could include participants from a diverse range of industries to examine the robustness of the research hypotheses across different contexts. Second, although we collected data from multiple time points and multiple sources, we still can not firmly draw conclusion of causality between study variables. Employing longitudinal tracking and experimental designs would strengthen the causal inferences between variables. Next, this study primarily focuses on how negative mentoring experiences impact on individual apprentices’ craftsmanship spirit, overlooking the potential influence of team-level factors like team dynamics and collaborative culture. Considering both individual and team-level factors would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the development and maintenance of craftsmanship spirit in new apprentices. Another limitation is that our measures of focal variables were based on job-related behaviors and attitudes. We opted to use workplace-related measurement to assess vocational college student’s occupational identity and craftsmanship spirit, recognizing vocational education and workplace-based learning’s pivotal role in shaping their identity as future employees [38]. Particularly during on-the-job internships, students not only acquire necessary work skills but also develop a value system assessing their capability for the job. However, we acknowledge it’s challenging for vocational students to develop a genuine occupational identity similar to that of employees due to their limited time in the workplace [58]. Therefore, we recommend future research either constructive replicate our study with full-time employees in workplace settings or utilize measurements specifically tailored for vocational college students.

5. Conclusion

This study, based on social exchange theory and regulatory focus theory, employed a “mentor-apprentice” matching approach and distributed questionnaires at three different time points to investigate how experiences of negative mentoring may impact the craftsmanship spirit of new apprentices. Our study drew the following conclusions: negative mentoring experiences significantly and negatively affect the craftsmanship spirit of new apprentices. Occupational identity partially mediates the relationship between negative mentoring experiences and craftsmanship spirit. Promotion focus negatively moderates the relationship between negative mentoring experiences and occupational identity, and it negatively moderates the indirect impact of negative mentoring experiences on craftsmanship spirit through occupational identity. Prevention focus positively moderates the relationship between negative mentoring experiences and occupational identity, and it positively moderates the indirect impact of negative mentoring experiences on craftsmanship spirit through occupational identity.

Key points

•

This study explores the influence mechanism of negative mentoring experiences on the craftsmanship spirit of new apprentices by drawing on social exchange theory and regulatory focus theory.

•

Apprentices’ occupational identity partially mediates the relationship between negative mentoring experiences and craftsmanship spirit.

•

The indirect negative relationship between negative mentoring experiences and craftsmanship spirit through apprentices’ occupational identity is stronger when apprentices have a higher prevention focus and a lower promotion focus.

•

Organizations should be aware of the adverse effects of negative mentoring experiences on individuals with a higher level of prevention focus.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the participants for their time and valuable contribution.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

This work was supported by Guangdong Province Philosophy and Social Sciences Planning 2023 Discipline Co-construction Project (GD23XJY17), Guangdong Province Philosophy and Social Sciences Planning 2024 Discipline Co-construction Project (GD24XJY11), Guangzhou Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project (2023GZGJ164), Special Research Project of Philosophy and Social Sciences in Universities of Guangdong Province (2022GXJK245) and Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation(2023A1515110491).

Ethical approval

This study complies with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval was obtained from the research ethics committee of the School of Educational Science at Guangdong Polytechnic Normal University before data collection.

Informed consent

All participants were informed about the study and their consent to participate was obtained before the questionnaire application.

Notes

References

Zhu

Ouyang

Chen

. Spiritual leadership, autonomous motivation and employee craftsmanship spirit: The cross-level moderating effect of caring ethical climate. Psychol Res Behav Manage. 2022;15:1971‐88.

Wei

. How Mentoring Cultivates the Craftsman Spirit of Protégés—A Moderated Mediation Model. Sustainability. 2023;15(8):6384.

Paanakker

. Values of public craftsmanship: The mismatch between street-level ideals and institutional facilitation in the prison sector. Am Rev Pub Admin. 2019;49(8):884‐96.

. The double-edged sword of personality in shaping craftsmanship spirit: An investigation of conscientiousness and openness to experience. Front Psychol. 2024;15:1332257.

Jing

. Research on the Application of Servant Leadership in Cultivating High-Quality Craftsmanship-Style Teachers. J Educ Educ Res. 2023;5(1):191‐6.

Zhu

Ouyang

Guo

. Paternalistic leadership and craftsmanship of manufacturing employees: Influence of job involvement and team positive emotional climate. J Syst Manag. 2022;31(1):89.

Kwan

Zhang

. Dealing with negative mentoring experiences: The roles of ‘can-do’ and ‘reason-to’ factors. Asia Pac J Hum Resour. 2023;62(1):e12387.

Deng

Guan

Zhou

Cai

, et al. The “double-edged sword”effects of career support mentoring on newcomer turnover: How and when it helps or hurts. J Appl Psychol. 2024;109(7):1094‐114.

Kwan

. The effects of negative mentoring experiences on mentor creativity: The roles of mentor ego depletion and traditionality. Hum Resour Manage R. 2022;61(1):39‐54.

10.

Eby

McManus

Simon

Russell

JEA

. The protege’s perspective regarding negative mentoring experiences: The development of a taxonomy. J Vocat Behav. 2000;57(1):1‐21.

11.

Cropanzano

Anthony

Daniels

Hall

. Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Acad Manag Ann. 2017;11(1):479‐516.

12.

Deng

Wang

Aime

Wang

Sivanathan

Kim

. Culture and patterns of reciprocity: The role of exchange type, regulatory focus, and emotions. Pers Soc Psychol B. 2021;47(1):20‐41.

13.

De Carlo

Falco

Pierro

Dugas

Kruglanski

Higgins

. Regulatory mode orientations and well-being in an organizational setting: The differential mediating roles of workaholism and work engagement. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2014;44(11):725‐38.

14.

Banerjee-Batist

Reio

Jr Rocco

. Mentoring functions and outcomes: An integrative literature review of sociocultural factors and individual differences. Hum Resour Dev Rev. 2019;18(1):114‐62.

15.

Liu

Abi Aad

Maalouf

Abou Hamdan

. Self-vs. other-focused mentoring motives in informal mentoring: Conceptualizing the impact of motives on mentoring behaviours and beneficial mentoring outcomes. Hum Resour Dev Int. 2021;24(3):279‐303.

16.

Blau

. Justice in social exchange. Sociol Inquiry. 1964;34(2):193‐206.

17.

Molm

Takahashi

Peterson

. Risk and trust in social exchange: An experimental test of a classical proposition. Am J Sociol. 2000;105(5):1396‐427.

18.

Kwan

Zhang

. The effects of negative mentoring experiences on proteges’ turnover intention: The roles of harmonious work passion and moqi with the mentor. J Manage Psychol. 2024: ahead-of-print.

19.

Kwan

Zhang

. Dealing with negative mentoring experiences: The roles of ‘can-do’and ‘reason-to’factors. Asia Pac J Hum Resour. 2024;62(1):e12387.

20.

Allen

Eby

Poteet

Lentz

Lima

. Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2004;89(1):127‐36.

21.

Eby

LTdT

Allen

Hoffman

Baranik

Sauer

Baldwin

et al. An interdisciplinary meta-analysis of the potential antecedents, correlates, and consequences of protégé perceptions of mentoring. Psychol Bull. 2013;139(2):441‐76.

22.

Kumar

. Exploring incongruence in mentoring dyads in Indian firms: The protégé perspective. S Asian J Hum Resour Manage. 2018;5(2):216‐33.

23.

Topa

Perez-Larrazabal

. Newcomers’ learning and co-worker undermining: Moderated mediation analysis. J Managerial Psychol. 2016;31(5):914‐29.

24.

Ros

Schwartz

Surkiss

. Basic individual values, work values, and the meaning of work. App Psychol. 1999;48(1):49‐71.

25.

Fugate

Kinicki

Ashforth

. Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications. J Vocat Behav. 2004;65(1):14‐38.

26.

Tajfel

Turner

. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austin

Worchel

, editors. The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole; 1979. p. 33‐37.

27.

Kao

Hsu

H-H

Rogers

Lin

Lee

H-T

Lian

. I see my future!: Linking mentoring, future work selves, achievement orientation to job search behaviors. J Career Dev. 2022;49(1):232‐45.

28.

Scandura

. Dysfunctional mentoring relationships and outcomes. J Manage. 1998;24(3):449‐67.

29.

Green

Jackson

. Mentoring: Some cautionary notes for the nursing profession. Contemp Nurse. 2014;47(1-2):79‐87.

30.

Jeanson

Michinov

. What is the key to researchers’ job satisfaction? One response is professional identification mediated by work engagement. Curr Psychol. 2020;39(2):518‐27.

31.

Johnson

Smith

Wallace

Hill

Baron

. A review of multilevel regulatory focus in organizations. J Manage. 2015;41(5):1501‐29.

32.

Zhang

Parker

. Reorienting job crafting research: A hierarchical structure of job crafting concepts and integrative review. J Org Behav. 2019;40(2):126‐46.

33.

Higgins

Pinelli

. Regulatory focus and fit effects in organizations. Ann Rev Org Psychol Org Behav. 2020;7(1):25‐48.

34.

Higgins

. Beyond pleasure and pain. Am Psychologist. 1997;52(12):1280‐300.

35.

Pattershall

Eidelman

Beike

. Regulatory focus and affective recall. Motivat Emot. 2012;36(3):396‐403.

36.

Byron

Peterson

Zhang

LePine

. Realizing challenges and guarding against threats: Interactive effects of regulatory focus and stress on performance. J Manage. 2018;44(8):3011‐37.

37.

Lapalme

M-É

Tremblay

Simard

. The relationship between career plateauing, employee commitment and psychological distress:The role of organizational and supervisor support. Int J Hum Resour Manage. 2009;20(5):1132‐45.

38.

Ferm

Thunqvist

Svensson

Gustavsson

. Vocational students’ identity formation in relation to vocations in the Swedish industrial sector. Nord J Vocat Educ. 2019;9(2):91‐111.

39.

Zhang

L-f

. Vocational college students’ vocational identity and self-esteem: Dynamics obtained from latent change score modeling. Pers Indiv Differ. 2024;229:112746.

40.

Dubeau

Chochard

. Influence of Guidance on Occupational Image and Traineeship’s Satisfaction of Vocational Students. Vocat Learn. 2024;17(2):297‐310.

41.

Colley

James

Diment

Tedder

. Learning as becoming in vocational education and training: Class, gender and the role of vocational habitus. J Vocat Educ Train. 2003;55(4):471‐98.

42.

Eby

McManus

. The protégé’s role in negative mentoring experiences. J Vocat Behav. 2004;65(2):255‐75.

43.

Lockwood

Jordan

Kunda

. Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002;83(4):854‐64.

44.

Tyler

McCallum

. Assessing the relationship between competence and job role and identity among direct service counseling psychologists. J Psychoeduc Assess. 1998;16(2):135‐52.

45.

Zhao

Gao

. Connotation, measurement and cultivation of craftsmanship under the background of high-quality development. China Soft Sci. 2020;7:169‐77.

46.

Wang

. Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behavior: Moderating effect of negative affectivity. J Serv Sci Manage. 2016;9(1):66‐73.

47.

Eby

Robertson

. The psychology of workplace mentoring relationships. Ann Rev Org Psychol Org Behav. 2020;7(1):75‐100.

48.

Ghosh

Irum

. Will I help you or will I not? Occupational social taint, core self-evaluation, and occupational helping identity. Eur J Work Organ Psy. 2023;32(1):145‐56.

49.

Albrecht

. Job resources and employee engagement in a Chinese context: The mediating role of job meaningfulness, felt obligation and positive mood. Int J Bus Emerg Markets. 2012;4(4):277‐92.

50.

Festinger

. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1957.

51.

Lichtenthaler

Fischbach

. A meta-analysis on promotion-and prevention-focused job crafting. Eur J Work Organ Psy. 2019;28(1):30‐50.

52.

Zeng

Zhou

Shen

. Dealing with an abusive boss in China: The moderating effect of promotion focus on reward expectancy and organizational citizenship behavior. Int J Conflict Manage. 2018;29(4):500‐18.

53.

Whitman

Halbesleben

JRB

Holmes Iv

. Abusive supervision and feedback avoidance: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion. J Org Behav. 2014;35(1):38‐53.

54.

Friedman

Förster

. The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001;81(6):1001‐13.

55.

Higgins

Spiegel

. Promotion and prevention strategies for self-regulation: A motivated cognition perspective. In: Baumeister

Vohs

, editors. Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications. New York: The Guilford Press; 2004; 171‐88.

56.

Molden

Lee

Higgins

. Motivations for promotion and prevention. In: Shah

Gardner

, editors. Handbook of motivation science. New York: The Guilford Press; 2008. p. 169‐87.

57.

Yuan

. Different effects of supervisor positive and negative feedback on subordinate in-role and extra-role performance: The moderating role of regulatory focus. Front Psychol. 2022;12:757687.

58.

Virtanen

Tynjälä

Stenström

M-L

. Field-specific educational practices as a source for students’ vocational identity formation. In: Billett

, Harteis

, Eteläpelto A, editors. Emerging perspectives of workplace learning. Rotterdam: Sense; 2008. p. 17‐34.

	Occupational identity			Craftsmanship spirit
Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6	Model 7
Constant	–0.252(0.708)	–0.248(0.699)	–0.169(0.664)	–1.155(0.627)	–1.066(0.576)	–1.125(0.570)	–1.053(0.558)
Age	0.022(0.037)	0.022 (0.037)	0.023(0.035)	0.047(0.033)	0.039(0.030)	0.039(0.030)	0.042(0.029)
Gender	–0.058(0.325)	–0.076(0.321)	–0.212(0.305)	0.466(0.288)	0.486(0.264)	0.506(0.262)	0.379(0.257)
Origin of student	–0.132(0.198)	–0.146(0.196)	–0.126(0.185)	0.143(0.175)	0.189(0.161)	0.219(0.160)	0.178(0.156)
Type of post	0.038(0.113)	0.059(0.112)	0.079(0.106)	–0.175(0.100)	–0.188*(0.092)	–0.195* (0.092)	–0.158(0.090)
Nature of enterprise	0.015(0.075)	–0.001(0.074)	–0.016(0.070)	0.080(0.066)	0.075(0.061)	0.072(0.060)	0.057(0.059)
Negative mentoring experience (A)	–0.223^***(0.057)	–0.207^***(0.056)	–0.125*(0.055)	–0.393^***(0.050)	–0.314^***(0.047)	–0.306^***(0.047)	–0.269^***(0.047)
Promotion focus (B)		0.074(0.052)				0.135^**(0.043)
A×B		0.137^**(0.045)				0.015(0.037)
Prevention focus (C)			0.354^***(0.051)				0.225^***(0.046)
A×C			–0.094*(0.043)				–0.074*(0.037)
Occupational identity					0.353^***(0.044)	0.341^***(0.044)	0.270^***(0.046)
R ²	0.047	0.077	0.170	0.168	0.300	0.320	0.349
Δ R ²	0.031^***	0.055^**	0.015*	0.154^***	0.286^***	0.302^***	0.332^***
F	2.805*	3.504^***	8.601^***	11.399^***	20.638^***	17.539^***	19.997^***