Special Issue
Journal of Career Development
1-14
Career Decision, Work Adjustment, ª Curators of the Universityof Missouri 2021
and Person–Job Fit of Adolescents: Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Moderating Effects of Parental DOI: 10.1177/0894845321995960
journals.sagepub.com/home/jcd
Support
Markus P. Neuenschwander1 , and Jan Hofmann1
Abstract
We applied the social cognitive model of work satisfaction to the transition from lower secondary edu-
cation to work in Switzerland and combined career decision and adjustment to work. The model assumes
that self-efficacy affects career decision outcomes and adjustment after transition to work. Self-efficacy
interacts with parental support during career decision making. We tested the model using a longitudinal
sample of 603 adolescents who filled out questionnaires in seventh grade, ninth grade, and 1 year after
starting work. Structural equation models showed that parental support weakens the effect of self-efficacy
on anticipated person–job fit and expectations of work conditions (moderation). Expectations of work
conditions and a company’s support help newcomers to attain a high perceived person–job fit. These
findings have several implications on how to support adolescents’ school-to-work transition.
Keywords
career decision making, transition from school to work, workplace adjustment, parental support,
person–job fit, longitudinal studies, path analysis/structural equation modeling
Adolescents’ Transition From School to Work
The transition from school to work is an important step in people’s professional careers. This transi-
tion starts with a career decision process and ends with an adjustment process at work. Career deci-
sions mainly depend on one’s self-efficacy expectations and are embedded in social contexts (Lent &
Brown, 2013). Research on work adjustment focuses on the process of how young people become
socialized in a new job (Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003; Lent & Brown, 2008). Following
these approaches, in this article, we will address three new topics: First, research on career decisions
has rarely examined the effects of career decision on the adjustment process at work using longitudi-
nal data (Brown & Lent, 2019). At the same time, research on work adjustment has rarely studied the
1 Center for Learning and Socialization, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, Windisch, Switzerland
Corresponding Author:
Markus P. Neuenschwander, Center for Learning and Socialization, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern
Switzerland, Bahnhofstrasse 6, CH-5210 Windisch, Switzerland.
Email: markus.neuenschwander@fhnw.ch
2 Journal of Career Development XX(X)
processes prior to the transition to work. Typically, research on career decisions and research on work
adjustment are treated as separate domains. It is important to gain more knowledge about the transi-
tion that includes characteristics of career decisions and adjustment at work because adolescents are
expected to make a career decision that they realize and that leads to a successful professional
career (Lent & Brown, 2013). Career decisions influence adolescents’ hopes and wishes and their
motivation when they start working (Sortheix et al., 2013). Researchers and vocational counselors
need more evidence on how career decisions support the professional pathway after the transition.
Second, many researchers have examined the effects of self-efficacy on career decisions (Ireland &
Lent, 2018). Additionally, there are many findings on how parents support adolescents in career deci-
sions (Keller & Whiston, 2008; Raymund et al., 2012). However, more knowledge is required on how
individual agency such as self-efficacy interacts with environmental factors such as parents’ support
during career decision making and how this interaction affects the adjustment after transition to work.
Brown and Lent (2019) reported that moderator hypotheses in the social cognitive career theory
(SCCT) framework have rarely been tested, though they are often postulated. If parents’ support mod-
erates the effect of self-efficacy on adolescents’ career decisions in the transition to work, conse-
quences for adolescents with low supportive parents deserve attention.
Third, a lot of research on career decisions and adjustment to work has been done with U.S. college
students (Brown & Lent, 2019). However, no researchers have used a longitudinal study design to examine
how students in lower secondary education (educational environment) prepare for the transition to work
(work environment), which is the most common situation in Switzerland. It is unclear whether the model
that was developed in the U.S. context and the results for U.S. college students can be applied to other
national contexts such as Switzerland (Howard et al., 2009). Findings for the Swiss context allow for eval-
uating the usefulness of the model for countries with an elaborated vocational education and training
(VET) system. In comparison to U.S. adolescents, adolescents in Switzerland move on to work earlier
in life. Institutions at the federal and state levels organize the transition by specific laws and professional
support in schools, companies, and counseling institutions. More knowledge is needed about the general-
izability of the SCCT to other age groups and national contexts with an elaborated VET system.
To treat these three gaps, in this article, we answer the following research question: How does parental
support interact with self-efficacy in career decision making to predict adolescents’ work adjustment after
the transition? We examined this question using parts of the social cognitive model of career self-
management (Lent & Brown, 2013) and the social cognitive model of work satisfaction (Lent & Brown,
2008). These models were supported in many studies (Brown & Lent, 2019). We examined a combination
of these models and outlined a social cognitive model of work adjustment. Through this approach, we
investigated whether parents’ career support moderates the effect of adolescents’ self-efficacy on expec-
tations toward work and the anticipated person–job fit before the transition and the perceived person–job fit
after the transition for the case of Switzerland. The understanding of the transition from school to work is
improved if career decision theory is combined with research on work adjustment (Royle, 2015).
In Switzerland, about 45% of adolescents choose a profession and directly move on to dual VET
after lower secondary education in compulsory school (Babel & Lagana, 2016). At the beginning of
VET (10th grade), they are on average between 15 and 16 years old. They work in a company 3 or
4 days a week and attend vocational school the remaining days of the working week. Apprentices inter-
pret the transition to VET as starting to work (Neuenschwander et al., 2012). VET is accredited as a
formalized work and educational setting at the upper secondary level (Stalder & Nägele, 2011). Most
adolescents remain in their chosen professional field when they move from VET to the free labor mar-
ket (Leemann & Keck, 2005). Thus, adolescents make important career decisions before starting VET.
A VET diploma allows them to acquire a professional baccalaureate that makes them eligible for a
program at a university of applied sciences. Adolescents with a VET diploma have a very low risk for
unemployment. They have a much lower risk for unemployment than do adolescents without a higher
secondary education diploma (Scharenberg et al., 2014).
Neuenschwander and Hofmann 3
Adjustment to Work
In the social cognitive model of work satisfaction, Lent and Brown (2008) extended the SCCT (Lent
et al., 1994) with components measuring work adjustment outcomes such as work satisfaction and per-
son–job fit. The model assumes that adolescents’ self-efficacy and outcome expectations, supported by
environmental resources, help adolescents progress at their career goals. Competences and agentic
behavior help them follow their career goals and adjust to workplace. As a result, adolescents develop
work satisfaction and life satisfaction. The model proposes that career goals, work satisfaction, and life
satisfaction are also influenced by personality and affective traits.
Research has shown that work satisfaction and person–job fit are highly correlated (Kristof-Brown
et al., 2005). However, whereas work satisfaction is a judgment of the individual work situation
(Diener, 2000), person–job fit refers to the relationship of an individual’s personality to the work envi-
ronment (Neuenschwander et al., 2012; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). In line with Bandura (1977), we
prioritized a concept that relates a person to their environment. Thus, we used person–job fit as an indi-
cator of work adjustment outcome. The perception of person–job fit positively correlates with motiva-
tion and achievement on the job (Neuenschwander et al., 2012; Feij, 1998; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005).
Prior to the transition from school to work, adolescents anticipate how they will fit with character-
istics of their future job. This anticipated person–job fit corresponds with the perceived person–job fit
after starting work and results from prior career decision efforts (career decision outcome). Even
before adolescents have started work, in prior studies, researchers reported that adolescents in Switzer-
land have valid information about their future job (Nägele & Neuenschwander, 2014).
In line with the social cognitive model of work satisfaction, perceived person–job fit depends on
contextual factors. In the SCCT framework, supportive company strategies help newcomers follow
their career goals, perceive themselves as competent and self-efficacious, and thus perceive a high per-
son–job fit. These strategies include creating social structures and curricula in companies that help
newcomers adjust. Environmental support helps the individual adjust to the work and implement
career goals by modeling, encouragement, and feedback (Lent & Brown, 2008). Prior studies showed
that companies employ strategies to introduce young employees to new tasks and social contexts
(Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003; Saks & Gruman, 2018). Company strategies that support ado-
lescents’ adjustment to work correspond with a high person–job fit (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). To
summarize, we tested the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1: Supportive company strategies positively influence perceived person–job fit.
Career Decisions and Transition to Work
The school-to-work transition does not only consist of work adjustment processes but also of career
decision making. The SCCT introduced various determinants of career decisions, such as self-
efficacy, outcome expectations, professional actions, and contextual influences proximal to decision
behavior (Lent & Brown, 2013). Two core concepts in the SCCT to predict career decision are self-
efficacy and expectations of work conditions (Lent & Brown, 2013).
Self-efficacy refers to one’s perceived ability to complete a task (Bandura, 1977). Lent and Brown
(2013) described domain-specific self-efficacy and coping self-efficacy. We included coping self-
efficacy in the model to equally address both tasks, career decision (Lent & Brown, 2013) and adjust-
ment to work (Lent & Brown, 2008). Adolescents with high self-efficacy are actively engaged and feel
competent to apply appropriate strategies to find a job and to adjust to the work. Prior cross-sectional
research showed correlations between self-efficacy and adjustment (Lent et al., 2012). However, we
did not find any studies that examined longitudinal effects of self-efficacy prior to the transition on
work adjustment outcomes such as perceived person–job fit after the transition.
4 Journal of Career Development XX(X)
Lent and Brown (2008) conceptualized expectations of work conditions as outcome expectations.
Expectations of work conditions measure the anticipated consequences of performing one’s work role.
Adolescents with accurate expectations of work conditions have more knowledge on how to adjust to
work and to elaborate a high person–job fit. Expectations of work conditions motivate adolescents’
goal-directed behavior and provide guidelines to effectively cope with the company’s demands (Hom
et al., 1999) and enhance the adjustment process. Prior studies revealed correlations between expec-
tations of work conditions and job satisfaction (Lent et al., 2019) and newcomers’ adjustment
(Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003). However, there is very little research on whether expecta-
tions of work conditions before the transition predict person–job fit after the transition in VET
(Neuenschwander & Gerber, 2014). The SCCT assumes that adolescents behave in the company
according to their expectations that resulted from their career decision making. These expectations pre-
dict the adjustment process in a company, independent of the company’s strategies to welcome new-
comers. While expectations of work conditions and anticipated person–job fit influence adolescents’
goal-directed behavior to adjust to work, socialization tactics create social structures in work groups
and define curricula. Socialization tactics refer to a different level of work adjustment than expecta-
tions of work conditions and anticipated person–job fit. Accordingly, Lent and Brown (2008) did not
consider environmental support as a moderator in their work adjustment model.
The SCCT postulates that self-efficacy predicts expectations of work conditions and decisional out-
comes such as anticipated person–job fit. Adolescents with high self-efficacy are able to organize their
actions and to persist in the face of challenges to achieve favorable career decision outcomes (Lent &
Brown, 2013). They expect outcomes that are more positive when they view themselves as capable
performers. They collect information about professions and companies where they can apply for an
apprenticeship (Singer et al., 2014). Hence, they have accurate expectations of work conditions (Hom
et al., 1999; Sheu et al., 2017). Moreover, based on the information, adolescents with high self-efficacy
choose a company according to their goals and competences. As a result, adolescents with accurate
expectations of work conditions establish a high person–job fit (Singer et al., 2014). To summarize,
we hypothesized the following:
Hypothesis 2: Expectations of work conditions (2a) and anticipated person–job fit (2b) before tran-
sition positively predict perceived person–job fit after transition to work.
Hypothesis 3: Self-efficacy before transition positively predicts expectations of work conditions
(3a) and anticipated person–job fit (3b) before transition. Self-efficacy before transition positively
predicts perceived person–job fit after transition, mediated by expectations of work conditions and
anticipated person–job fit (3c).
Parental Support During Career Decision Making
In the SCCT tradition, resources in the social context give a feeling of competence and support ado-
lescents to explore career options and make a career decision (Dietrich & Kracke, 2009). Adolescents
list their parents as the most important persons of reference in their career decisions (Herzog et al.,
2006). Parents strongly influence adolescents’ career decisions in various ways (Bryant et al.,
2006). They provide motivation and advice for adolescents to explore career options and follow their
career goals (Lent & Brown, 2013). They help adolescents obtain information about the prospective
company, establish accurate expectations of work conditions, and find a job that fits their goals. Lent
and Brown (2013) assumed that environmental support by parents directly influences career decisions
and moderates the effect of self-efficacy on career decisions. Parents’ support reduces the importance
of individual agency and competence to establish accurate expectations of work conditions and to
anticipate a high person–job fit (Lent & Brown, 2013). Adolescents have little work experience and
trust the advice of persons with more work experience such as their parents. Thus, parents’ support
Neuenschwander and Hofmann 5
weakens the effect of self-efficacy on expectations of work conditions and on finding a job that fits
with the person. Although recently, researchers (e.g., Ireland & Lent, 2018; Keller & Whiston,
2008) have examined the predictive effects of parental support on career decisions, parental support
moderating adolescents’ career decisions has less frequently been a subject of research (Amarnani
et al., 2018; Garcia et al., 2011). We did not find any longitudinal findings on how parental support
moderates the effect of self-efficacy on expectations of work conditions and anticipated person–job
fit in lower secondary education. To summarize, we postulate the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 4: Parental support during adolescents’ career decision making positively affects
expectations of work conditions (4a) and anticipated person–job fit (4b). It moderates the effect
of self-efficacy on expectations of work conditions (4c) and on anticipated person–job fit (4d), such
that high levels of parental support weaken the effect of self-efficacy on expectations of work con-
ditions and anticipated person–job fit.
To combine Hypotheses 3 and 4, parental support reduces the importance of self-efficacy to develop
expectations of work conditions and anticipated person–job fit and therefore, it reduces the effect of
self-efficacy on perceived person–job fit after the transition. We assume a multiple mediated modera-
tion of parental support on the indirect effect of self-efficacy before the transition on perceived person–
job fit after the transition.
Hypothesis 5: Parental support during adolescents’ career decision making moderates the indirect
effect of self-efficacy before the transition on perceived person–job fit after the transition, such that
high levels of parental support weaken the indirect effect of self-efficacy on perceived person–job fit.
Method
Participants
The researchers initiated the study to examine educational pathways from primary school to employ-
ment in four German-speaking cantons in Switzerland. The study was funded by the Swiss National
Science Foundation and the Swiss Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation. It started in
2011 and involved five measurement waves. In this article, we used data from the last three waves.
In the first of these three waves, adolescents were in seventh grade (fall 2013); in the second wave,
adolescents were in ninth grade (the last year of their compulsory schooling, spring 2016); and in the
third wave, they were at the end of their first year of VET (spring 2017). We used the subsample of 603
adolescents who indicated they were in VET after compulsory schooling on either the second- or third-
wave questionnaire (mean age in third wave: 16.81 years, SD age: 0.59; female: 44.3%). There were
111 adolescents who participated in all three waves. To reduce missing values, we only included the
adolescents who did not participate in the third wave if they participated in both Waves 1 and 2 (492
adolescents).
To test for missing response patterns, we conducted t tests with SPSS 25 for all first- and second-wave
variables in the analyses. We tested missing response patterns between follow-up waves using the total
sample for each wave of measurement. There were no response biases for first-wave variables: self-
efficacy, t(1,498.807) ¼ 0.91, p ¼ .36, Cohen’s d ¼ .05. There were no missing response effects or
only small effect sizes for second-wave variables: expectations of work conditions, t(1,070) ¼ 0.51,
p ¼ .61, Cohen’s d ¼ .03; parental support, t(1,333.22) ¼ 3.23, p < .001, Cohen’s d ¼ .18; anticipated
person–job fit, t(2,240) ¼ 2.22, p ¼ .03, Cohen’s d ¼ .09. Small effect sizes indicate that missing
response patterns do not vary between the waves of data collection in a relevant way. A connection
between the missing data mechanism and the observed variables is ignorable (Little & Rubin, 2020).
6 Journal of Career Development XX(X)
Procedures
In the first and second waves, adolescents voluntarily filled out standardized questionnaires in their
classrooms or at home. Trained members of the research team administered the survey in the first
wave, and the classroom teacher did so in the second wave. In the third wave, researchers emailed ado-
lescents who participated in the second wave and asked them to answer a standardized online question-
naire. Members of the research team contacted all adolescents who did not fill out the online
questionnaire to participate in a computer-assisted telephone interview with a shortened questionnaire.
Some of these adolescents later answered a supplementary questionnaire with the remaining questions
of the online questionnaire. In contrast to the first and second waves, in the third wave, the adolescents
were offered incentives prior to the survey. All questionnaires met ethical standards.
Measures
First-wave questionnaire. Adolescents’ coping self-efficacy was measured using six items developed by
Schwarzer et al. (1999). Adolescents responded on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not true
at all) to 6 (completely true; N ¼ 344, M ¼ 4.12, SD ¼ 0.63, missing ¼ 43.0%). Example items
included “If something opposes me, I can find the means and ways to get what I want” and “It is easy
for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals.” Cronbach’s a reliability for the Self-Efficacy
Scale was .71. Schwarzer et al. (1999) reported a reliability in prior studies between .75 and .91. Factor
analysis explained 29.8% of variance.
Second-wave questionnaire. Adolescents reported their perceived parental support during their career deci-
sion making using five items from Dietrich and Kracke (2009). Adolescents responded on a 6-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not true at all) to 6 (completely true; N ¼ 564, M ¼ 4.86, SD ¼
0.93, missing ¼ 6.5%). Example items included “My parents help me find a suitable study program
or get a suitable apprenticeship” and “My parents give advice on the decision of careers available.” Cron-
bach’s a reliability for the Parental Support Scale was .92. Dietrich and Kracke (2009) reported an a
reliability of .93 for girls and .84 for boys. Factor analysis explained 69.8% of variance.
Adolescents reported expectations of work conditions using five items (Breaugh & Mann, 1984).
Adolescents rated their level of information about the work conditions and responded on a 6-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not true at all) to 6 (completely true; N ¼ 519, M ¼ 5.08, SD ¼
0.67, missing ¼ 13.9%). Example items included “I know what the good points and bad points of
my training company are” and “I have a clear understanding of what this training company will entail
for me.” Cronbach’s a reliability for expectations of work conditions was .87. Factor analysis
explained 57.0% of variance.
Adolescents reported anticipated person–job fit using five items from Neuenschwander and Gerber
(2014). Adolescents responded on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not true at all) to 6 (com-
pletely true; N ¼ 587, M ¼ 5.31, SD ¼ 0.66, missing ¼ 2.7%). Example items included “My future
situation in VET corresponds with my person” and “My future situation in VET corresponds with
my school abilities.” Cronbach’s a reliability for the anticipated person–job fit was .86. Neuenschwan-
der and Gerber (2014) reported an a reliability of .81. Factor analysis explained 57.0% of variance.
Third-wave questionnaire. Adolescents reported the perceived socialization tactics employed by their
training company using three items from Cable and Parsons (2001). At the end of the first year of VET,
adolescents retrospectively rated the socialization tactics employed by their training company at the
beginning of VET on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not true at all) to 6 (completely true;
N ¼ 322, M ¼ 4.62, SD ¼ 1.10, missing ¼ 46.6%). Example items included “At the beginning of the
apprenticeship, the individual training steps in my company were clearly defined” and “At the begin-
ning of my apprenticeship, I was familiarized with the chronological sequence of my training in my
Neuenschwander and Hofmann 7
company.” Cronbach’s a reliability for the socialization tactics was .83. Factor analysis explained
62.8% of variance.
Adolescents reported perceived person–job fit using the same five items as for the anticipated person–
job fit (N ¼ 358, M ¼ 5.05, SD ¼ 0.78, missing ¼ 40.6%). The item wording was adjusted to match ado-
lescents’ new environmental context (Neuenschwander & Gerber, 2014). Example items included “My
current situation in VET corresponds with my person” and “My current situation in VET corresponds with
my school abilities.” Cronbach’s a reliability for the perceived person–job fit was .85. Neuenschwander
and Gerber (2014) reported an a reliability of .88. Factor analysis explained 52.7% of variance.
Analytical Procedure
We examined the hypotheses using structural equation modeling (SEM). In the first step, we tested
measurement models for invariance in Mplus 8.1. To test configural invariance, we tested all measure-
ment models. Latent variables were correlated. The same items of the person–job fit variables that
were tested in second and third waves were set to be correlated. Then, we tested for metric invariance
between the waves of measurement for person–job fit. We used the measurement models of anticipated
person–job fit (t1) and perceived person–job fit (t2) that resulted from the configural invariance test.
We compared a model in which the factor loadings between the waves were constrained to be equal
(constrained model) with a model in which the factor loadings between the waves were freely esti-
mated (unconstrained model). We compared models using the w2 difference statistics with Satorra–
Bentler correction. Nonsignificant w2 difference statistics indicated metric invariance between waves.
In the second step, we tested the full SEM using the measurement models that resulted in the invar-
iance tests in Mplus 8.1. We tested the moderation effects of parental support in two models: In the first
model, we included parental support as a predictor of expectations of work conditions and career deci-
sion outcomes. In the second model (moderator model), we additionally included parental support as a
moderator via the interaction term of parental support and self-efficacy (Sardeshmukh & Vandenberg,
2017). All items were centered by the grand mean. We tested the gain in model fit after including the
moderator by comparing the change of the Akaike information criterion (AIC). A lower AIC indicates
a lower loss of information and a better fit of the model.
Examination of skewness and kurtosis indicated that maximum likelihood estimation with robust
standard errors was appropriate for this study (Boomsma, 2000). We used the full information maxi-
mum likelihood procedure implemented in Mplus to deal with missing data, which leads to more reli-
able and less biased estimations than other methods (Schafer & Graham, 2002).
The evaluation of model adequacy was based on the w2 statistics, comparative fit index (CFI), root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR).
A nonsignificant w2 value (p > .05) indicates a good fit between the model and the data. However, w2
values tend to become significant in large samples. We reported other model fit indices according to
Schermelleh-Engel et al. (2003). They recommended that good fit is indicated if the CFI is greater than
or equal to .97 (acceptable fit: .95), the RMSEA is less than or equal to .05 (acceptable fit: .08), and the
SRMR is less than or equal to .05 (acceptable fit: <.10). In the full SEM, we modified the model when
indices’ values did not meet the criterion of acceptable fit. We report the results of SEM analyses for a
one-sided significance level because we postulated directed hypotheses.
Results
Analysis of Invariance
First, we tested the measurement models for configural invariance, w2(303, N ¼ 603) ¼ 411.6, p < .001,
CFI¼ .98, RMSEA ¼ .02, SRMR¼ .06, AIC¼ 27,725. Correlations among variables ranged from.14
to .41 (Table 1).
8 Journal of Career Development XX(X)
Table 1. Intercorrelations Among Latent Variables.
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Self-efficacy t1 — .11 .18* .18* .14 .09
2. Parental support t2 — .21*** .14* .03 .06
3. Anticipated person–job fit t2 — .41*** .04 .30***
4. Expectations of work conditions t2 — .03 .28***
5. Company support t3 — .31***
6. Perceived person–job fit t3 —
Note. t1: seventh grade, t2: ninth grade, t3: end of first year of work.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).
Second, we tested the metric invariance for the measurement model of person–job fit. Both the
unconstrained, w2(13, N ¼ 596) ¼ 20.36, p ¼ .09, CFI ¼ .99, RMSEA ¼ .03, SRMR ¼ .04, and the
constrained model, w2(16, N ¼ 596) ¼ 20.48, p ¼ .20, CFI ¼ 1.00, RMSEA ¼ .02, SRMR ¼ .05, fit the
data well. The w2 difference statistics for those models were not significant, w2(3, N ¼ 596) ¼ 1.85, p ¼
.60, indicating metric invariance.
The Structural Models
The SEM fits the data adequately, w2(308, N ¼ 603) ¼ 414.5, p < .001, CFI ¼ .98, RMSEA ¼ .02,
SRMR ¼ .06, AIC ¼ 27,718. Standardized estimates are reported. In line with Hypothesis 1, compa-
nies’ support significantly predicted perceived person–job fit (b ¼ .31, p < .001). In accordance with
Hypotheses 2a and 2b, both anticipated person–job fit and expectations of work conditions predicted
perceived person–job fit (b ¼ .23, p < .001 and b ¼ .17, p ¼ .019, respectively). In line with Hypoth-
esis 3a, self-efficacy predicted expectations of work conditions (b ¼ .17, p ¼ .011). Self-efficacy fur-
ther predicted anticipated person–job fit (b ¼ .17, p < .01; Hypothesis 3b supported). In line with
Hypothesis 3c, there is a significant total indirect effect of self-efficacy on perceived person–job fit
through anticipated person–job fit and expectations of work conditions (total standardized indirect
effect: b ¼ .06, p ¼ .013). The direct effect of self-efficacy on perceived person–job fit was not sig-
nificant (b¼ .04, p ¼ .407). Thus, expectations of work conditions and anticipated person–job fit fully
mediated the effect of self-efficacy on perceived person–job fit. Parental support significantly pre-
dicted expectations of work conditions (b ¼ .12, p ¼ .021; Hypothesis 4a supported) and anticipated
person–job fit (b¼ .19, p < .001; Hypothesis 4b supported). Explained variances in perceived person–
job fit, anticipated person–job fit, and expectations of work conditions were 21.5%, 7.0%, and 4.9%,
respectively.
Moderation Through Parental Support
To test Hypotheses 4c and 4d, we specified parental support as moderating the effect of self-efficacy
on expectations of work conditions and anticipated person–job fit. The models’ fit improved (AIC ¼
27,716, DAIC ¼ 2, N ¼ 603). All effects remained the same in terms of the level of significance.
Figure 1 shows the unstandardized estimates. The moderator significantly influenced the effect of
self-efficacy on anticipated person–job fit and the effect of self-efficacy on expectations of work con-
ditions. The difference between high and low values of the moderator for the effect of self-efficacy on
expectations of work conditions was significant (B ¼ .60, p ¼ .036). At high levels of parental support,
the effect of self-efficacy on expectations of work conditions was low (B ¼.12, p ¼ .230), whereas at
low levels, the effect was high (B ¼ .48, p ¼ .013).
Neuenschwander and Hofmann 9
Figure 1. Prediction of perceived person–job fit by career decision and company’s support. Note. Unstandardized
estimates; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (one-tailed); t1: seventh grade, t2: ninth grade, t3: end of first year of
work.
The difference between high and low values of the moderator for the effect of self-efficacy on
anticipated person–job fit was significant (B ¼ .39, p < .01). At high levels of parental support, the
effect of self-efficacy on anticipated person–job fit was low (B ¼ .03, p ¼ .287), whereas at low lev-
els, the effect was high (B ¼ .36, p < .01; Hypotheses 4c and 4d supported).
The total unstandardized indirect effect of self-efficacy on perceived person–job fit was significant
(B ¼ .08, p < .01). The indirect effects did not differ between high and low values of the moderator:
The difference between high and low values of the moderator in the indirect effect mediated by expec-
tations of work conditions was B ¼ .04 (p ¼ .29) and for the mediator anticipated person–job fit was
B ¼.03 (p ¼ .28). Thus, the moderator did not affect the indirect effects of self-efficacy on perceived
person–job fit at work (Hypothesis 5 rejected).
Discussion
Using an adapted and extended version of the SCCT, we combined career decision and adjustment to
work and elaborated an extensive view on school-to-work transition. We outlined a social cognitive
model of work adjustment that is supported in the SEM with longitudinal data in the Swiss context.
In career decision making, self-efficacious adolescents gain a high level of expectations of work con-
ditions and find a job with a high person–job fit. In this article, we present two new main results: (a)
Adolescents’ accurate knowledge about the work and a high anticipated person–job fit before the tran-
sition promote the adjustment process after the transition. This, as well as companies’ support for new-
comers, helps them adjust to their work and establish a high person–job fit. (b) Parental support
weakens the role of self-efficacy in the work adjustment process. High parental support weakens the
effect of self-efficacy on expectations of work conditions and on anticipated person–job fit. However,
this moderating effect should be replicated in countries where adolescents make career decisions later
in life than in Switzerland.
Contrary to the hypothesis, parental support did not moderate the indirect effect of self-efficacy on
perceived person–job fit after transition. Although adolescents strongly rely on parental advice in
career decision making (Neuenschwander et al., 2012), we assume that parental support before the
10 Journal of Career Development XX(X)
transition does not have a long-term effect on adolescents’ work adjustment after the transition.
According to SCCT, parents support their adolescents by giving advice and the feeling of competence
to make a sound career decision. We assume that the adjustment process at the workplace is structured
by the company and by adolescents’ expectations of work conditions. Within this structured context,
parental support before the transition does not moderate the effect of self-efficacy on perceived per-
son–job fit.
Furthermore, in line with findings of studies on the SCCT in various countries such as the United
States, China, Italy, Portugal, Angola, and Mozambique (cf. Brown & Lent, 2019; Sheu et al., 2017),
self-efficacy and expectations of work conditions also predict adjustment to work in the Swiss context.
Self-efficacy and expectations of work conditions are concepts that can be interpreted as basic princi-
ples that explain the transition from school to work in the U.S. context as well as in the Swiss VET
context.
Our results highlight the important role parents have in adolescents’ career decision making. To
help adolescents achieve favorable career decision results, parents can take various supporting actions.
Based on our results, these actions are, among others, talking with adolescents about their interests and
skills; encouraging information seeking about professions and apprenticeships in which the adolescent
is interested, but also drawing attention to post-compulsory education pathways the adolescent seems
to overlook; and co-evaluating adolescents’ chances of completing various post-compulsory education
pathways. However, though parents’ support helps adolescents with low self-efficacy to make a good
career decision, parents’ support of adolescents with high self-efficacy has ambivalent effects. Suppor-
tive parents may insinuate adolescents that agentic behaviors are not necessary in career decision and
take the adolescents’ responsibility to achieve favorable career decision results. As a consequence,
adolescents might become lazy. This risk is not so high because the correlation between parental sup-
port and self-efficacy is positive.
Limitations and Conclusions
The study is subject to limitations. First, we could not group adolescents into types of professions
due to limitations in the sample size. Thus, we could not test the validity of the model for various
professional domains separately in line with Lent et al. (1994). Career decision and work adjustment
might interact with domain specificity of the professions. In contrast to domain-specific studies on
the SCCT (e.g., Lent et al., 2008), we followed the social cognitive model of career self-management
and investigated domain-unspecific processes. Future research should examine these processes for
various professions separately. Second, parental support was operationalized in the adolescents’ per-
spective only. Garcia et al. (2011) reported that the parental perspective could lead to extended
results. Replicating this study using data on parental support provided by the parents is important.
Third, we did not investigate the transition from VET to the labor market. The results are limited
to the transition from school to work in VET. Adolescents choose a profession before starting VET
and have to adjust to their job in VET. Thus, this transition includes a major step in career decision
making and adjustment to work, but not the whole transition from school to labor market. Fourth, we
only measured one aspect of parental support in career decision. In line with the SCCT, it might be
worth extending the analyses, studying parents’ influence as role models in the career decision and
transition to work (Neuenschwander et al., 2018) and analyzing in more detail the processes of vicar-
ious learning in the career decision to better understand career decision making. By examining more
aspects of parental behavior, we receive a more detailed picture on parents’ role in career decision.
This line of research has the potential to be extended to siblings and peers and to the study of their
mutual influence in the career decision.
These results exemplify how specific strategies of persons of reference in social contexts support
adolescents during the school-to-work transition. It is a characteristic of the SCCT tradition that career
Neuenschwander and Hofmann 11
decision making and transition to work are conceptualized as individual processes regulated by char-
acteristics of the social context (Lent et al., 2001). In an educational perspective, these results offer a
background for how to design parental support and VET contexts that support students’ school-to-
work transition (Neuenschwander et al., 2012). Future research should examine if and how other per-
sons from the social context, such as teachers and supervisors, can apply these behaviors and support
adolescents’ career decision making process with low self-efficacy expectations.
More research is needed to combine career decision and work adjustment to elaborate more
aspects of these complex processes. In particular, longitudinal studies can provide reliable results
on how the career decision process prepares adolescents for successful adjustment at work and for
their life career. In line with the rich literature on socialization tactics (e.g., Saks & Gruman, 2018)
and onboarding (e.g., Doepner-Hove, 2012), the results showed the importance of a company’s
socialization tactics. Companies play a major role in supporting adolescents to elicit a high per-
son–job fit. In the perspective of transition research, future research should examine companies’
strategies that influence the level of expectations of work conditions and anticipated person–job fit
before the transition. We assume that face-to-face interactions and short internships effectively
inform job applicants about the company. Characteristics of career decisions play a key role in pre-
paring adolescents for the adjustment process after transition, but the experiences at work influence
the perceived person–job fit even more.
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 and/or authorship of
this article: This study was supported by Staatssekretariat für Bildung, Forschung und Innovation
(Grant ID: 1315000504) and Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen
Forschung (Grant ID: 100013_134594/1).
ORCID iD
Markus P. Neuenschwander https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4154-9238
References
Amarnani, R. K., Garcia, P. R. J. M., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Bordia, S. (2018). Do you think I’m worth
it? Journal of Career Assessment, 26(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072716679925
Babel, J., & Lagana, F. (2016). Der Übergang am Ende der obligatorischen Schule [Transition at the end of com-
pulsory school] (Report No. 1665-1600). Bundesamt für Statistik. https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfsstatic/dam/a
ssets/1520326/master
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2),
191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Boomsma, A. (2000). Reporting analyses of covariance structures. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisci-
plinary Journal, 7(3), 461–483. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0703_6
Breaugh, J. A., & Mann, R. B. (1984). Recruiting source effects: A test of two alternative explanations. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 57(4), 261–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1984.tb00167.x
Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (2019). Social cognitive career theory at 25: Progress in studying the domain satis-
faction and career self-management models. Journal of Career Assessment, 27(4), 563–578. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1069072719852736
12 Journal of Career Development XX(X)
Bryant, B. K., Zvonkovic, A. M., & Reynolds, P. (2006). Parenting in relation to child and adolescent
vocational development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(1), 149–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.
2006.02.004
Cable, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (2001). Socialization tactics and person–organization fit. Personnel Psychology,
54(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00083.x
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American
Psychologist, 55(1), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.34
Dietrich, J., & Kracke, B. (2009). Career-specific parental behaviors in adolescents’ development. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 75(2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.03.005
Doepner-Hove, S. (2012). The development of a comprehensive onboarding program at a big ten research univer-
sity. In C. R. Wanberg (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organizational socialization (pp. 288–302). Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Feij, J. A. (1998). Work socialization of young people. In P. J. D. Drenth, H. Thierry, & C. J. de Wolff (Eds.),
Handbook of work and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 207–256). Psychology Press.
Garcia, P. R. J. M., Restubog, S. L. D., Toledano, L. S., Tolentino, L. R., & Rafferty, A. E. (2011). Differential
moderating effects of student- and parent-rated support in the relationship between learning goal orientation
and career decision-making self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 20(1), 22–33. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1069072711417162
Herzog, W., Neuenschwander, M. P., & Wannack, E. (2006). Berufswahlprozess [The career decision process].
Haupt.
Hom, P., Griffeth, R. W., Palich, L. E., & Bracker, J. S. (1999). Revisiting met expectations as a reason why rea-
listic job previews work. Personnel Psychology, 52(1), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.
tb01815.x
Howard, K. A. S., Ferrari, L., Nota, L., Solberg, V. S. H., & Soresi, S. (2009). The relation of cultural context and
social relationships to career development in middle school. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75(2), 100–108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.06.013
Ireland, G. W., & Lent, R. W. (2018). Career exploration and decision-making learning experiences: A test of the
career self-management model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 106, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.
2017.11.004
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Wanberg, C. R. (2003). Unwrapping the organizational entry process: Disentangling
multiple antecedents and their pathways to adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 779–794.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.779
Keller, B. K., & Whiston, S. C. (2008). The role of parental influences on young adolescents’ career development.
Journal of Career Assessment, 16(2), 198–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072707313206
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A
meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psy-
chology, 58(2), 281–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x
Leemann, R. J., & Keck, A. (2005). Der Übergang von der Ausbildung in den Beruf [The transition from VET to
occupation]. Federal Office of Statistics.
Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2008). Social cognitive career theory and subjective well-being in the context of
work. Journal of Career Assessment, 16(1), 6–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072707305769
Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2013). Social cognitive model of career self-management: Toward a unifying view
of adaptive career behavior across the life span. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(4), 557–568. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0033446
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Brenner, B. (2001). The role of contextual supports and barriers in the choice of
math/science educational options: A test of social cognitive hypotheses. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
48(4), 474–483. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.48.4.474
Neuenschwander and Hofmann 13
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and aca-
demic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122. https://doi.org/10.
1006/jvbe.1994.1027
Lent, R. W., Lopez, A. M., Jr., Lopez, F. G., & Sheu, H.-B. (2008). Social cognitive career theory and the pre-
diction of interests and choice goals in the computing disciplines. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(1),
52–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.01.002
Lent, R. W., Morris, T. R., Penn, L. T., & Ireland, G. W. (2019). Social-cognitive predictors of career exploration
and decision-making: Longitudinal test of the career self-management model. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 66(2), 184–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000307
Lent, R. W., Taveira, M., & Lobo, C. (2012). Two tests of the social cognitive model of well-being in Portuguese
college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 362–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.08.009
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2020). Statistical analysis with missing data (3rd ed.). Wiley.
Nägele, C., & Neuenschwander, M. P. (2014). Adjustment processes and fit perceptions as predictors of organiza-
tional commitment and occupational commitment of young workers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(3),
385–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.08.011
Neuenschwander, M. P., & Gerber, M. (2014). Schulische Vorbereitung auf die berufliche Sozialisation im Lehr-
betrieb [School preparation for professional socialization in the training company]. Unterrichtswissenschaft,
42(3), 244–260. https://doi.org/10.3262/UW1403244
Neuenschwander, M. P., Gerber, M., Frank, N., & Rottermann, B. (2012). Schule und Beruf [School and occupa-
tion]. VS.
Neuenschwander, M. P., Hofmann, J., Jüttler, A., & Schumann, S. (2018). Professional desires and career deci-
sions: Effects of professional interests, role models, and internship in lower secondary school. International
Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training (IJRVET), 5(3), 226–243. https://doi.org/10.13
152/IJRVET.5.3.5
Raymund, P., Garcia, J. M., Toledano, L. S., Tolentino, L. R., & Rafferty, A. E. (2012). Differential moderating effects
of student- and parent-rated support in the relationship between learning goal orientation and career decision-
making self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 20(1), 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711417162
Royle, M. T. (2015). Theoretical drivers of early career success for new entrants to the job market. International
Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 8(1), 31–56. http://www.theibfr2.com/RePEc/ibf/ijmmre/i
jmmr-v8n1-2015/IJMMR-V8N1-2015-3.pdf
Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2018). Socialization resources theory and newcomers’ work engagement. Career
Development International, 23(1), 12–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/cdi-12-2016-0214
Sardeshmukh, S. R., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2017). Integrating moderation and mediation: A structural equation mod-
eling approach. Organizational Research Methods, 20(4), 721–745. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115621609
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2),
147–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.7.2.147
Scharenberg, K., Rudin, M., Müller, B., Meyer, T., & Hupka-Brunner, S. (2014). Ausbildungsverläufe von der
obligatorischen Schule ins junge Erwachsenenalter: Die ersten zehn Jahre [Educational pathways from school
to young adulthood: The first ten years]. TREE.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models:
Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online,
8(2), 23–74. https://scinapse.io/papers/1627191216
Schwarzer, R., Mueller, J., & Greenglass, E. (1999). Assessment of perceived general self-efficacy on the internet:
Data collection in cyberspace. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 12(2), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10615809908248327
Sheu, H. B., Liu, Y., & Li, Y. (2017). Well-being of college students in China: Testing a modified social cognitive
model. Journal of Career Assessment, 25(1), 144–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072716658240
Singer, A., Gerber, M., & Neuenschwander, M. P. (2014). Individuelle und soziale Bedingungen der beruflichen
Sozialisation im Lehrbetrieb [Individual and social determinants of professional socialization in the training
14 Journal of Career Development XX(X)
company]. In M. P. Neuenschwander (Ed.), Selektion in Schule und Arbeitsmarkt [Selection in school and
labor market] (pp. 165–186). Rüegger.
Sortheix, F. M., Dietrich, J., Chow, A., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2013). The role of career values for work engagement
during the transition to working life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 466–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jvb.2013.07.003
Stalder, B. E., & Nägele, C. (2011). Vocational education and training in Switzerland: Organisation, development
and challenges for the future. In M. Bergman, S. Hupka-Brunner, A. C. Keller, T. Meyer, & B. E. Stalder (Eds.),
Youth transitions in Switzerland (pp. 18–39). Seismo Verlag.
Author Biographies
Markus P. Neuenschwander received his PhD in psychology from the University of Berne (Switzerland) and his
habilitation in education and educational psychology from the University of Berne. He is the head of the Research
Center for Learning and Socialization at the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland
and teaches at the University of Basel (Switzerland). His research interests focus on the school-to-work transition
and educational careers. To recreate, he often goes on hiking tours in the mountains.
Jan Hofmann, MSc, has a master’s degree in educational science. He currently works as a junior researcher at the
University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland. He is also a PhD student at the University of
Basel. His research interests focus on the transition from school to work. In his leisure time, he likes to hike and to
play soccer.