Social Participation Type and Career Adaptability among Young Adults: An Examination of the Mediation Effect of Promotional and Preventive Regulatory Focus

Abstract

The purpose of the presented study was to investigate the relationship between career adaptability and developmental tasks by young adults regarding life orientation, and to check whether self-regulation is a mediator in the relationship between life orientation and career adaptability. In total, 435 young adults aged 18 to 34 years were included. The study used the Social Participation Questionnaire, the Self-Regulation Scale, and the Polish version of the Career Adapt-Abilities Scale-5. Mediation analysis found promotion regulatory focus to be a mediator in the relationship between life orientation and all five categories of career adaptability in the transitive orientation dependence model.

Introduction

Most of the economic, demographic, and social changes observed in recent decades in most Western societies are related to the process of entering adult life. In recent years, a trend has been noted towards increasingly later achievements of the so-called markers of adulthood, such as graduating from education, leaving the family home, running an independent household, getting married or having a child (Arnett, 2000; Brzezińska et al., 2011; Murphy et al., 2010; Settersten, 2011). This may be related to the need to function in the constantly changing conditions of the labour market and to deal with its characteristic globalization, discontinuity, and uncertainties. By experimenting and actively searching for new experiences, individuals build their identity in areas of life such as love, career, or worldview (Bańka, 2006; Mianowska, 2008); this has been demonstrated in nationwide studies of young Polish adults aged 18-29 (Kasprzak, 2013; Wiszejko-Wierzbicka & Kwiatkowska, 2018), whose findings confirm the existence of individualized plans for entering adulthood. In such plans, the constituent tasks are determined not by the external tasks of adulthood, but through an internal barometer associated with a feeling of readiness to undertake them. It was also noted that a significant percentage of respondents reject adulthood, do not want to accept its burdens, miss childhood, and want to enjoy the charms of life alone (Oleszkowicz & Misztela, 2015). In response, Rękosiewicz (2014) proposes that, in addition to objective markers, such as the birth of a child or obtaining a permanent job, subjective indicators of entering adulthood should also be taken into account, such as a sense of adulthood and the replacement of a moratorium orientation, related to focusing on the present and taking advantage of current opportunities, with a transitive orientation, i.e. one related to the implementation of subsequent adult development tasks. A similar view is presented by Zagórska (2004), who associates the subjective feelings of adulthood with a readiness to undertake tasks characteristic of this period of life and in having an image of one’s own functioning as an adult. These processes are included in the concept of early adulthood (Arnett, 2000; Gurba, 2011) and consist of independence from parents, shaping one’s identity, establishing intimate relationships, and taking responsibility for one’s decisions and actions, which allows for independence in formulating goals.  In this study, however, it was decided to depart from the concept of emerging adulthood in favour of the term "young adults". A common feature of both these groups is the delay in taking up the tasks of adulthood, as mentioned, for example, in recent demographic analysis presented in Poland by the Central Statistical Office (Cierniak-Piotrowska et al., 2019), which indicated a significant increase in the age of people forming close relationships and having children up to the age of 30-34.

One of the key developmental tasks of early adulthood, apart from the fulfilment of family and parental roles, is making subsequent decisions related to the development of a career. It is at this stage of life that an individual usually makes choices that shape his or her later professional life. Hence, the interest of researchers was aroused by the particular manifestation of adulthood, which is the individual's ability to adapt to a career and its relationship with developmental markers such as social participation. In addition, what an individual expects of the career tasks and what motivation he / she is driving is fundamental to their performance. From this point of view, the concept of regulatory focus could be applied. Under this concept, people regulate themselves to achieve ideal goals or avoid negative outcomes in a variety of strategic ways (Higgins, 1997), depending on what kind of regulatory focus they have, they either accomplish the desired aspiration based on promotion focus or achieve the required target while staying away from undesired results based on prevention focus. 

In this perspective, the current research concerns the mediation role of regulatory focus of young adults to explain the relationship between their life orientation and career adaptability. The study also identify the types of life orientation and social participation that dominate in the studied group of young adults, determine the levels of components of career adapt-ability and self-regulatory focus, and examines mutual relations between the variables included in the mediation model.

Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses

Career adaptability and life orientation

A meta-analysis of 90 studies by Rudolph et al. (2017) examined the relationships between career adaptability and three groups of variables: traits that determine adaptability expressed by inter alia proactivity, adapting responses such as career planning, and adaptation results such as job satisfaction. Adaptability was found to have a positive relationship with career planning, exploring professional opportunities, and a sense of self-efficacy (both in a general sense and related to making professional decisions).  Adaptability also turned out to be a predictor of identification with work, feeling a calling for a vocation, satisfaction with life, work and school engagement, employability, subjectively assessed performance, income and positive affect. In addition, significant correlations were also found with age and education level. The career adaptability was also found to be negatively related to occupational stress, intention to quit employment, and negative affect.

Currently conducted research examines the relationship between career adaptability and subjective features, as well as its consequences, such as commitment to work (Rossier et al., 2012). However, more research is needed examining the relationship between general maturity and career adaptability in young adults. In the few studies conducted so far on the developmental paradigm, age has not always been found to be a significant predictor of the development of career adaptability (Hirschi, 2009; Hirschi & Läge, 2007; Hirschi & Valero, 2015). 

The authors of the concept, Savickas and Porfeli (2012), suggest that a wide range of developmental variables may turn out to be predictors of the components of career adaptability, some of which may be identity statuses.  In standardizing the American version of the CAAS, these researchers used vocational identity research methodology (Porfeli, et al, 2011), resulting in the identification of six basic identity statuses.  Four of these statuses (see: Brzezińska, 2010), distinguished according to Marcia (1966), are achieved as a result of a combination of two steps: exploration and commitment. They are identity achievement, foreclosed identity, diffused identity, and moratorium identity.  Two additional statuses can also be distinguished by dividing the exploration category into in-depth vs extended, and the commitment category into making vs identification. Thus, a searching moratorium, also known as tentative commitment, was placed between the status of achieved and moratorium identity.  In addition, as one-fifth of young people do not fit clearly into any of these five statuses, a sixth status was also distinguished: undifferentiated. A systematic increase in CAAS score was found for all dimensions in the study groups (Porfeli et al., 2011); their identity statuses demonstrated increasing development potential from diffused identity to achieved identity.

Despite not referring directly to the concept of career adaptability, Polish research in the developmental area by Turska and Stasiła-Sieradzka (2016, 2018) identified significant relationships between the attitude towards transition to the labour market and variables related to the development of young people: some demonstrated a transitive orientation, i.e. a positive attitude, and others a moratorium attitude, i.e. a negative attitude.

The authors also draw on Reinders and Butz (2001), who defined four paths of development among young people based on high vs. low intensity of transitive life orientation and moratorium life orientation. These paths have been defined as four types of social participation: Integration (high level of both orientations), Assimilation (strong transitive orientation and weak moratorium), Segregation (low level of transitive orientation, but high moratorium) and Marginalization (both levels are low).  It turned out that young people with the assimilation type show a more positive attitude towards the transition from education to the labour market than people with a segregation type. 

Based on the aforementioned close relationship among developmental factors and career adaptability is assumed that the type of life orientation and the type of social participation are significantly related to career adaptability in such a way that the transitive orientation, as well as the assimilation and integration types of social participation, are positively associated with dimensions of career adaptability, while the moratorium orientation, as well as the marginalization and segregation types, are negatively associated with career adaptability (Hypothesis 1).

Regulatory focus as a mediating process

One of the most popular approaches for analysing the motivational mechanisms of an individual is given in Higgins’ regulatory focus theory (1997, 2012), in which the sources of motivation are seen in the functioning of the structure of the individual’s self. Higgins identifies the motivational standards of individuals as self-regulatory focus and discusses the mechanisms of engagement in taking action as self-regulatory adjustment. The shaping of expectations regarding one’s own actions depends on standards. Individuals with high promotion focus set goals related to their own aspirations; they tend to concentrate on future positive outcomes. Those with high preventive focus set goals resulting from duties and safety needs; they concentrate on avoiding failure. In regulatory focus theory, Higgins (2000, 2005) describes the impact of matching self-regulatory focus with environmental demands on the engagement of that individual in an activity; this theory indicates that individuals function more effectively when self-regulatory orientation is consistent with the characteristics of the task or situation in which they take action.

The regulatory focus theory also says that the processes of self-regulation take place differently, depending on what needs are to be satisfied thanks to them. Promotion regulatory focus is responsible for meeting nurturance needs through the link to ideas and aspirations. In contrast, the related preventive regulatory direction is responsible for the security needs (Higgins, 1997).  The distinguished two regulatory orientations are not opposing poles of one continuum, but two independent dimensions, two separate systems of self-regulation. It is possible for both orientations to be distinctly active at the same time, one or neither of them. Further research by Lockwood  et al. (2005) indicate likely changes in the meaning and strength of regulatory focus throughout life. Young people are generally more promotional in the sense that they are mostly focused on the positives they can achieve and pay less attention to threats or possible failures and failures. The importance of preventive focus increases with age, although it does not completely replace promotion focus. Therefore the preventive-focused individuals will be more typical of people with a transitive orientation that also develops with age (Luyckx et al. 2008; Rękosiewicz, 2014). 

Given these arguments, it is to be expected that a  significant relationship exists between life orientations and self-regulation - in the case of transitive orientation, there will be a positive relationship with preventive focus and negative with promotion focus,  in the case of moratorium orientation there will be a positive relationship with promotion focus and negative with preventive focus (Hypothesis 2). 

This theory provoked various studies regarding how promotional and preventive strategies affect human functioning. A number of interesting relationships were found with openness to change (Liberman et al., 1999), decision-making (Förster et al, 2003), temperament (Cwynar et al., 2017), personality (Bąk at al., 2015), and job satisfaction (Kim et al., 2020) however, relatively few studies have analysed the influence of motivation and engagement by the individual on the process of adapting to a career regarding self-regulation. An illustrative example of such a relationship is given in a study on the Spanish adaptation of the CAAS questionnaire (Merino-Tejedor, 2016), which indicated a positive relationship between self-regulation and all components of career adaptability. The role of self-regulation in the context of career adaptability was also explored by Dutch researchers Vianen et al. (2012).  Their findings indicate, as expected, a high level of promotion regulatory focus, and the initiation of pro-development activities, correlated positively with the results of three scales of adaptability: concern, curiosity, and confidence; in contrast, the results of the preventive regulatory focus scale, which assume an aversion to change and the selection of obligatory actions and minimizing losses, correlated negatively with confidence and positively with control. 

In line with empirical underpinnings (Kim et al., 2020; Merino-Tejedor, 2016; Vianen et al., 2012) a significant relationships between self-regulation and all components of career adaptability the following dependencies were expected - in the case of promotion focus, this relationship will be positive, in the case of preventive focus, this relationship will be negative (Hypothesis 3). By incorporating arguments that both regulatory foci are independent systems a mediating effect of both promotion and prevention focus on the relationship between life orientation types and career-adaptability was expected (Hypothesis 4).

Methods

Participants and procedure

Data were collected  from 435 participants, including 274 women and 160 men, aged between 18 and 34 (M = 23.76; SD = 3.37) using an online survey. The study group involved mainly full-time students and young graduates from technical, artistic, medical, and humanities disciplines; of these, 63.9% were working people with work experience, 25.3% were people with work experience, but currently unemployed, and 6.1% had no professional experience and were in the first job in their career. An invitation was sent via university social media. Those participants who volunteered to take part in the study accessed the online survey via a web link included in the invitation. Using individual desktop computers, participants completed all questionnaires online in a counterbalanced order. Participants were informed on the first page of survey that their participation was voluntary, anonymous, and confidential. 

Measures

Career Adaptability Scale – 5  (Nye at al., 2018; Paszkowska-Rogacz, 2020)

Polish adaptation of this instrument by Paszkowska-Rogacz (2020), consisting of 30 items, is an extension of the CAAS questionnaire by Savickas and Portfeli (2012). The respondent assesses the extent to which he or she has developed specific skills for items in each of the five subscales: Concern (e.g., preparing for the future), Control (e.g. making decisions independently), Curiosity (e.g. observing different ways of performing tasks), Confidence (e.g. overcoming difficulties), and Cooperation (e.g. understanding other people’s point of view). All items are phrased positively. The statements are arranged in a similar way to the original tool. The respondent scores each statement on a five-point scale, from 1 (not my strength) to 5 (my strongest aspect). The points are totalled for each subscale as well as for all test items as a global score.

The Polish version of the questionnaire (Paszkowska-Rogacz, 2020) demonstrates satisfactory fit ratios: χ2/df = 3.3; goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = .89; comparative fit index (CFI) = .93; Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = .89; root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .06; standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) = .08; normed fit index (NFI) = .87. All scales in the 5-factor version are also characterized by high reliability, as indicated by Cronbach’s alpha: Concern - .86, Control - .81, Curiosity - .83, Confidence - .86, Cooperation - .77, and overall Adaptability - .92. 

Social Participation Questionnaire - SPQ (Rękosiewicz, 2013a, 2013b)

This instrument is an original Polish tool developed by Brzezińska et al., 2013a, 2013b) based on the theory that social participation types are shaped during the transition from adolescence to adulthood, by Reinders et al. (as cited in Reinders, 2006). This scale is used to diagnose the types of Moratorium Life Orientation (e.g., if possible, I avoid responsibilities and spend time in a pleasant way) and Transitive Life Orientation (e.g. I do a lot to have a job that will ensure success in my life in the future), and thus assess the four dimensions of social participation: integration (both high moratorium and transitive orientation), segregation (high moratorium orientation, low transitive orientation), marginalization (both low orientations) and assimilation (high transitive orientation, low moratorium orientation). The present study used the shortened version of the tool (KPSS-2) recommended for groups aged 20-35 years old. The tool consists of two subscales of 10 items, making 20 items in total. The respondent scores each statement on a 5-point scale (definitely not - probably not - hard to say - probably yes - definitely yes). A high score on the Moratorium Orientation Scale indicates that the respondent focuses on achieving current goals and using current opportunities. A high result on the Transitive Orientation Scale suggests that the respondent is focused on the development and achievement of goals set in the future. The tool has previously demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties, with Cronbach’s α reliability indicators being .86 for the Moratorium Orientation Subscale and .84 for the Transitive Orientation subscale (Rękosiewicz, 2014). In this study, the obtained indicators were .81 and .83, respectively.

Scale of Promotional and Preventive regulatory focus – SSPP (Kolańczyk et.al., 2013) 

This scale is used to diagnose promotion and prevention bias, understood as a relatively constant feature.  It was created on the basis of Higgins’ regulatory bias theory (1997, 2012). It consists of 27 items; the respondent scores each one on a five-point scale, where 1 indicates definitely no and 5 - definitely yes.  The statements constitute five subscales in total: Promotional Standards (SPro), e.g., In life I usually do what I want; Promotional Self-control (KPro), e.g, I like to act spontaneously; Preventive Standards (SPre), e.g. I usually do what I have to; Preventive Self-control (KPre), e.g. I know I can be wrong, so I act carefully; and the Strength of motivation (M), e.g. It’s hard to discourage me when I make up my mind.  In addition, the subscales for standards and self-control can be classified into two general scales: Promotion (Pro) with nine items, Prevention (Pre) with 11 items, and Strength of Motivation (M) with seven items, thus creating a three-factor structure.  According to the authors of the questionnaire, the general scales demonstrate satisfactory reliability, amounting to .77 for the Pro and Pre scales, .73 for M, and between .57 (KPro) and .74 (KPre) for the detailed scales.  In the present study, the Cronbach’s α indices were .75 for the Pre scale, .81 for the Pro scale, and .83 for the M scale. Therefore, to allow comparison with previous studies, the present study only includes the results for the general scales (Pre and Pro).

Data analysis

Data were analysed using SPSS 27. Firstly, the distribution of all scale scores was examined. Three univariate repeated measures ANOVA analyses were performed to identify  predominant types of life orientation, self-regulation strategies, and career adaptability. Secondly, in order to select four types of social participation on the basis of the results of transitive and moratorium orientation, k-means cluster analysis was used, with moratorium and transitive orientation as a criterion.

 To verify the hypothesis regarding relationship between life orientation, social participation, self-regulation focus and career adaptability correlation between all continuous variables (two life orientations, two self-regulation focus and five career adaptability dimensions) were computed. Moreover ANOVA analyses were performed to compare levels of career adaptability in for types of social participation clusters.

To test the mediating effect of promotion and preventive regulatory focus on the relationship between life orientation and career adaptability, multiple mediation analyses were performed using the Hayes PROCESS macro in IBM SPSS 27 software (Hayes, 2018). Before analyzing the data, multivariate analysis assumptions were investigated with measurement scales reliability. Using a multiple mediator model provides a means by which the strength of more than one mediating pathway between a predictor and outcome can be tested (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Bootstrapping resampling procedures produce two estimated analyses: the total indirect effect and the specific indirect effects. This involves repeatedly sampling from the dataset with replacement in order to estimate these effects. For each effect, bootstrapping produces a bias-corrected lower and upper confidence interval, based on stipulated confidence levels. To establish if an effect is significant, one examines the values corresponding to the lower and upper confidence intervals. If zero lies between the two values, this indicates no significant effect. If zero does not lie between the two values, a significant effect is indicated. The total indirect effect assesses if both mediators combined mediate the relationship between life orientation and the indicators of career adaptability. The specific indirect effects assess each mediator’s unique ability to account for the effect of the life orientation on indicators of career adaptability, the other mediator in the model. The specific indirect effects of each mediator are contrasted to determine if there is a significant difference in the mediators’ ability to mediate the relationship between life orientation and the indicators of career adaptability (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

The first step was to identify the predominant types of life orientation, self-regulation focus, and career adaptability factors. It was found that the transitive orientation prevails over the moratorium, F(1, 434) = 152.92; p <.001; ω² = .55 and preventive over promotion regulatory focus, F(1, 434) = 84.49; p <.001; ω² = .10. Omega Squared effect sizes were large and medium respectively. Comparing the mean scores on the five CAAS-5 subscales, the results of the Mauchly test were statistically significant, and hence sphericity had been violated, χ² (9) = 100.35, p <.001]; therefore the Greenhouse-Geisser test was used (ε = .91). A significant difference was found between the mean scores of the subscales, F(3.6, 1563.5) = 55.83, p <.001, ω² = .10. The lowest results were obtained on the Concern scale, and the highest on the Control scale. A post hoc comparison found that the differences between the scores of the Control and Confidence, Control and Cooperation, and Confidence and Cooperation scales were not statistically significant. The compared means are presented in Table 1. 

A preliminary analysis done by k-means cluster analysis has emerged four types of social participation, with moratorium and transitive orientation as a criterion. As a result, the following independent groups were obtained: (1) Integrative type: high moratorium orientation and high transitive orientation (27.7% of respondents); (2) Assimilation type: low moratorium orientation and high transitive orientation (34.9% of respondents); (3) Segregation type: high moratorium and low transitive orientation (13.7% of respondents); (4) Marginalization type: low transitive orientation and low moratorium (23.7% of respondents).

Life Orientation, Type of Social Participation, and Career Adaptability

Correlation analysis based on Pearson’s r revealed significant positive correlations between transitive orientation and all CAAS-5 subscales, most strongly with the concern scale. The moratorium orientation was found to correlate negatively with the concern scale and positively with the control scale; however, the correlation was low. There is no correlation with the other three scales. 

The next stage examined the career adaptability according to individual social participation clusters. The clusters differed in four dimensions: Concern, F(3, 434) = 36.32, p  < .001; η² = 0.20]; Control, F(3,433) = 6.37, p < .001, η² = .04; Curiosity, F(3, 432) = 11.37, p < .001, η² = .07 and confidence, F(3, 433) = 9.09; p < .001; η² = .06; however, no significant difference was observed in terms of Cooperation, F(3, 432) = 1.17, p = .71; η² = .01]. The highest level of Concern, Curiosity, and Confidence was observed among the Integration and Assimilation types, and the lowest among people with the Segregation type.

Considerable differences in control were also visible between the clusters: the highest level was demonstrated by the segregation type and the lowest by the marginalization and assimilation types (Figure 1). These results suggests that mainly transitive orientation is associated with high career adaptability, with one exception of high level of control which is associated with a high level of moratorium orientation and a low level of transitive orientation. Therefore, the first hypothesis has been mostly verified.

Life Orientation and Self-Regulation

The promotion strategy is significantly and positively related to both the transitive orientation and moratorium orientation.  The preventive strategy correlates positively with the transitive orientation and negatively with the moratorium orientation (Table 1). This means that the second hypothesis was confirmed only in relation to the latter.

Self-regulation and Career Adaptability 

Correlation analysis (Pearson’s r) indicated significant positive correlations between promotional regulatory focus and all CAAS-5 subscales as assumed in the third hypothesis (Table 1); of these, the promotion regulatory focus appears to correlate most strongly with the control scale. A prevention focus correlations were not entirely in line with expectations. The correlation with the control scale was negative but positive with the concern and curiosity scales.  The other two correlations were found to be insignificant.

Table 1 

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix of CAAS-5, PPSS, and SPQ Variables 

Note: Differences between means of CAAS-5 with the same indexes are not statistically significant. 

*p < .05; **p < .01
 

Testing for Mediation Effects

Multiple mediation analysis allows for the evaluation of competing hypotheses within a single model (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Here bias corrected (BC) 95% CI bootstrapping based on 5000 samples to simultaneously evaluate two competing accounts of what mediates the relationship between life orientations and indicators of career adaptability: promotion and prevention regulatory focus was used. Mediation models for each of the five indicators of career adaptability, using standardized (b) regression coefficients, are shown in Figure 2 with transition orientation  as a independent variable and in Figure 3 with moratorium orientation  as a independent variable. Examination of the direct effects in Figure 2 shows that the transition orientation is significantly positively associated with all career adaptability dimensions. In each of five models the transition orientation is significantly positively associated with promotion 

between transition orientation and career adaptability is mediated by both regulatory focus only in one case,. To determine which is the stronger mediator of curiosity  contrast  of specific indirect effects was examined. It indicate no significant difference in influence between two mediators (Table 2).

Examination of the direct effect in Figure 3 shows that the moratorium orientation is  significantly negatively associated with concern and positively with control, and not significantly associated with curiosity, confidence and cooperation. In each of five models moratorium orientation is significantly positively associated wit promotion focus and significantly negatively associated with prevention focus. A stronger moratorium orientation was associated with higher promotion focus and lower prevention focus which predicted control dimension, Contrasts of the indirect effects indicate significant difference in influence between the two mediators of which the promotion focus is stronger.  For control only promotion focus is a significant mediator of relationship with moratorium orientation. The results were interpreted according to Hayes’ recommendations (2018).

The results of the mediation analyses based on the least squares method verified hypothesis 3: the promotional regulatory focus mediated the relationship between transitive orientation and all career adaptability components and between moratorium orientation and the concern and control components. In addition, promotion regulatory focus weakened the relationships between both life orientations and the components of career adaptability (Table 2). All bootstrap confidence intervals for ten intermediate effects were above zero, based on 5000 samples (MacKinnon, Lockwood & Williams, 2004). In contrast, neither life orientation was found to have any indirect effect on the career adaptability components when preventive regulatory focus was used as a mediator.

Table 2

Bootstrapping Multiple Mediation Results of Transition Orientation on Career Adaptability Indicators as Outcome Measures: Concern, Control, Curiosity, Confidence, Cooperation through promotion and prevention regulatory foci

Note. PE = Point Estimate; 95% CIs: L-CI = Lower limit of the confidence interval; U-CI = Upper limit of the confidence interval; SE = Standard Error.

^*p < .05. 

Table 3

Bootstrapping Multiple Mediation Results of Moratorium Orientation on Career Adaptability Indicators as Outcome Measures: Concern, Control, Curiosity, Confidence, Cooperation through promotion and prevention regulatory  foci

Note. PE = Point Estimate; 95% CIs: L-CI = Lower limit of the confidence interval; U-CI = Upper limit of the confidence interval; SE = Standard Error.

^*p < .05.

Discussion

The identified distribution of participation types is consistent with those reported by other authors in studies on young adults (Rękosiewicz, 2014; Savickas, Portfeli, 2012; Turska, Stasiła-Sieradzka, 2016, 2018); in the group, the assimilation and integrative personality types predominated, and young adults were more likely to display a transitive orientation than a moratorium orientation. It can be assumed that this advantage will grow with age, but it is not known what positive effect it will have for people undertaking professional tasks.

Marcia (1966), in line with the realities of life in the 1960s, emphasized the need to finalize the moratorium phase and move on to making decisions and final choices. A more modern perspective taken by Mianowska (2008) is that moratorium behaviour can be interpreted as young people looking for their own way of life by exploring new forms of activity that were not available in earlier stages of life. During this period, the individual can better understand their own strengths and weaknesses, and identify opportunities for educational and professional development. Furthermore, due to the capricious nature of the current labour market, there is a strong need to shape moratorium life strategies and makeshift or temporary solutions that may ultimately turn out to be effective. Hence, it is not surprising that a preventive strategy may be favoured over a promotional one, as those who self-regulate based on a preventive strategy tend to make choices more carefully and analytically, i.e. more slowly but more accurately (Bąk et al., 2015). Similar tendencies have been noted among young adults in previous studies (Cwynar et al., 2017).

Our present analysis of the CAAS-5 scales suggests that the studied group are less able to adapt to a career than those described in previous international studies (Savickas & Portfeli, 2012); however, these previous studies used the four-factor version of the test while the present one uses the five-factor version, the mean CAAS-5 scores for each scale are similar to those obtained in studies using other five-factor questionnaires on young adults from Korea and China, but much lower than those from America (Nye et al., 2018).

Our findings partially confirm our hypotheses that it is indeed possible that a significant relationship exists between the type of life orientation, the type of social participation and career adaptability; however, assimilation-type participants (low moratorium and high transitivity) are characterised by a weaker sense of control regarding the future career. This may indicate a realistic assessment of the contemporary labour market by this group, as indicated by a previous study in Poland by Kasprzak (2013). In contrast, the integration-type participants (both moratorium and transitive are high) present the strongest career adaptability in all its dimensions, while those characterised by marginalization and segregation demonstrate the lowest. The latter group, however, appeared to have a higher sense of control compared to the marginalizing type (i.e., those with a higher moratorium orientation); similar results were obtained by Turska and Stasiła-Sieradzka (2016, 2018), who found these participants to have the most reluctant attitude towards transition to the labour market.

Our results showed, as expected, a positive relationship between the promotional strategy and all components of the career adaptability. Similar results were obtained by Vianen et al. (2012); however, unlike the present study, the authors did not observe any strong positive relationship between promotional strategy and control. Interestingly, although, they reported that a preventive attitude was negatively related to all five adaptive abilities; in the present study, only significant negative correlation was observed between preventive strategy and control. This distinctive relationship is consistent with expectations as, according to Higgins (2000), the pursuit of a preventive strategy tends to be associated with reduced resources of control and self-confidence. Such people are especially concerned about the possible negative effects of their actions, which weakens their confidence that they can overcome obstacles.

Hence, it is quite surprising to find strong positive relationships between the promotional focus and both the transitive orientation (which was expected) and the moratorium orientation (which was not). Higgins (1997) indicates that the realisation of a self-regulation process depends on the needs that it is intended to satisfy. A promotional attitude satisfies the needs for achievement, growth, and development, and is served by taking on challenges and embracing risk. Perhaps, then, these needs are specifically related to both orientations? In contrast, a preventive attitude (Higgins, 2012), rooted in standards of duty, serves to satisfy the need for security, and is accompanied by a preference for stability and a conservative attitude. In the present study, a negative correlation was observed between preventive strategy and the moratorium orientation, which does not confirm our predictions. However, it should be remembered that the two types of regulatory strategies described by Higgins are not opposing poles of a single dimension, but rather two separate systems of self-regulation. It is hence more accurate to speak of each having greater or lesser activity or strength. It is possible for both strategies to be active, with one or neither of them being clearly marked.

The conducted research demonstrates that motivational states, i.e., promotional and preventive attitudes, have different influences on the relationship between life orientation and career adaptability. For people with a preventive attitude (Higgins, 1997), safety is key; as such, they tend to monitor the environment in terms of possible threats that might prevent them from achieving their goals. However, previous studies in Poland found that neither the transitive nor moratorium orientation was related to the need for security (Turska & Stasiła-Sieradzka, 2018). Therefore, it is not surprising that this relationship was not mediated by the preventive regulatory focus in the studied group of young people who are highly risk-averse. A promotional attitude is focused on meeting the need for development; this favours control, and hence the search for objects coherent with the desired goal and which enable its fulfilment. A promotional attitude is characterized by a profit orientation, and thus focuses on the occurrence of positive events. This rule is confirmed by the fact that a mediation effect was only observed by promotional regulation.

Further research into the relationship between career adaptability and self-regulation using the Higgins (1997) concept should examine the differences between people with different profiles of self-regulation strategies, i.e., both high intensity, both low intensity, and one high and the other low. They should also include young people of different educational and professional status.

The presented study has some limitations. Firstly, the sample selection is not representative, with a predominance of women and people with longer work experience. However, while the sample is not probabilistic, it does include people from many disciplines. In addition, the study relies on self-report measures, which are prone to factors such as limited self-knowledge and the need for social approval. Finally, the use of self-reported scales may have resulted in increased correlations between variables due to shared variance. This tendency was counteracted by randomly changing the order of the questionnaires presented to the respondents.

To conclude, our findings enhance our understanding of the developmental aspects of adaptation to a career, and the mediating the role played by self-regulation strategies. By identifying the dimensions of career adaptability typical of young adults, it is also possible to better explain and predict the behaviour of those with different types of life orientation.

References

Arnett J.J. (2000). Emerging adulthood. A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469

Bąk, W., Bondyra-Łuczka, E., & Łaguna, M. (2015), Kwestionariuszowe Metody Pomiaru Ukierunkowań Regulacyjnych. Polskie Adaptacje Kwestionariuszy RFQ i RFS [Questionnaires for measuring dispositional regulatory focus. Polish adaptations of RFQ and RFS], Psychologia Społeczna, 10(32), 84-99. https://doi.org/ 10.7366/1896180020153206

Bańka, A. (2006). Psychologiczne doradztwo karier [Psychological career counseling]. PRINT-B.

Brzezińska, A. (2010).Społeczna psychologia rozwoju [Social psychology of development]. Wydawnictwo naukowe „Scholar”.

Brzezińska, A., Kaczan, R., Piotrowski, K., & Rękosiewicz, M. (2011), Odroczona dorosłość: fakt czy artefakt? [Postponed adulthood: fact or artefact?] Nauka, 4, 67‒107. 

Cierniak-Piotrowska, M., Franecka, A., Stańczak, J., Stelmach, K., Znajewska, A.  (2019) Sytuacja demograficzna Polski do 2018 r. Tworzenie i rozpad rodzin [Poland's demographic situation until 2018. Family creation and breakup], Główny Urząd Statystyczny, Departament Badań Demograficznych. 

Cwynar, M, Pleban, P., Pliś, A., & Mącik, D. (2017). Rodzaj samoregulacji w zależności od płci i temperamentu u osób we wczesnej dorosłości [Type of Self-Regulation Depending on Sex and Temperament in Early Adulthood]. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie - Skłodowska Lublin – Polonia, 30(3), 77-91, https://doi.org/ 10.17951/j.2017.30.3.77

Einarsdóttir, S., Vilhjálmsdóttir, G., Smáradóttir, S. B., & Kjartansdóttir, G. B. (2015). A culture-sensitive approach in the development of the Career Adapt-Abilities Scale in Iceland: Theoretical and operational considerations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 89, 172-181. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jvb.2015.06.006

Förster J., Higgins E.T., & Bianco A.T. (2003), Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built in trade-off or separate strategic concerns?, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(1), 148-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00509-5

Goodman, J. (1994). Career adaptability in Adults: Construct whose time has come, The Career Development Quarterly, 43(1), 74-84. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.1994.tb00848.x

Gurba E. (2011). Wczesna dorosłość [Early adulthood]. In J. Trempała (Ed.), Psychologia rozwoju człowieka (pp. 287‒311). Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Hayes, A.F. (2018). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. Guilford Press.

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280.

Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1217-1230. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.11.1217

Higgins, E. T. (2005). Value from regulatory fit. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(4), 209-213. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.0963-7214.2005.00366.x

Higgins, E. T. (2012). Beyond pleasure and pain: How motivation works. University Press.

Hirschi, A. (2009). Career adaptability development in adolescence: Multiple predictors and effect on sense of power and life satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(2), 145–155. https:// doi.org/1016/j.jvb.2009.01.002

Hirschi, A., & Läge, D. (2007). Holland’s secondary constructs of vocational interests and career choice readiness of secondary students. Journal of Individual Differences, 28(4), 205–218. https:// doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001.28.4.205

Hirschi, A., & Valero, D. (2015). Career adaptability profiles and their relationship to adaptivity and adapting. Journal of Vocational Behavior 88, 220–229. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jvb.2015.03.010

Kasprzak, E. ( 2013). Poczucie jakości życia pracowników realizującej różne wzory kariery zawodowej [The sense of quality of life of employees realising various career patterns]. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kazimierza Wielkiego.

Kolańczyk, A., Bąk, W., & Roczniewska, M. (2013) Skala samoregulacji promocyjnej i prewencyjnej [Promotion and Prevention Self-Regulation Scale (PPSS)], Psychologia Społeczna, 8(25), 203-218.

Liberman N., Idson L.Ch., Camacho Ch.J., & Higgins E.T. (1999), Promotion and Prevention choices between stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1135-1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1135.

Luyckx K., Goossens L., Soenens B. (2006), A developmental contextual perspective on identity construction in emerging adulthood: Change dynamics in commitment formation and commitment evaluation. Developmental Psychology, 42(2), 366–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.366.

MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1207%2Fs15327906mbr3901_4

Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego – identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(5), 551-558. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023281

Maree, K. (Ed.). (2017). Psychology of career adaptability, employability and resilience. Springer International Publishing.

McMahon,M., Watson, M., & Bimrose, J. (2012). Career adaptability: A qualitative understanding from the stories of older women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(3), 762–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.016

Merino-Tejedor, E., Hontangas, P. M., Boada-Grau, J. (2016). Career adaptability and its relation to self-regulation, career construction, and academic engagement among Spanish university students, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 93, 92-102, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.01.005

Mianowska, E. (2008). Strategie społecznego uczestnictwa młodzieży [Strategies of social participation of young people]. Kraków: Impuls.

Morrison, R. F., & Hall, D. T. (2002). Career adaptability. In D. T. Hall (Ed.), Careers in and out of organizations (pp. 205–233). Sage.

Murphy, K. A., Blustein, D. L., Bohlig, A. J., & Platt, M. G. (2010). The college-to-career transition: An exploration of emerging adulthood. Journal of Counseling & Development, 88(2), 174–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2010.tb00006.x

Nye, Ch. D, Leong, F., Prasad, J., Gardner, D., & Tien, H. L. S.(2018). Examining the Structure of the Career Adapt-Abilities Scale: The Cooperation Dimension and a Five-Factor Model. Journal of Career Assessment, 26(3), 549-562. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1069072717722767

Oleszkowicz, A., & Misztela, A. (2015) Kryteria dorosłości z perspektywy starszych adolescentów i młodych dorosłych [Criteria of adulthood from the perspective of late adolescents and young adults]. Psychologia Rozwojowa, 20(1), 41-55. https://doi.org/10.4467/20843879PR.15.002.3474

Paszkowska-Rogacz, A. (2020). Career adaptability – preliminary verification of the concept and measurement method, Psychologia Wychowawcza, Educational Psychology, Special Issue, 4-27. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0014.6221

Paszkowska-Rogacz, A. (2021). Social participation type and career adaptability among young adults. The mediating effect of promotional and preventive regulatory focus, [dataset]. v1. https://doi.org/10.17632/ksw23zzxcv.1

Ployhart, R. E., & Bliese, P. D. (2006). Individual adaptability (I-Adapt) theory: Conceptualizing the antecedents, consequences and measurement of individual differences in adaptability. In C. S. Burke, L. G. Pierce, & E. Salas (Eds.), Understanding adaptability: A prerequisite for effective performance within complex environments (pp. 3–39). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.

Porfeli, E. J., Lee, B., Vondracek, F. W., & Weigold, I. K. (2011). A multi-dimensional measure of vocational identity status. Journal of Adolescence, 34(5), 853–887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.02.001

Pouyaud, J., Vignoli, E., Dosnon, O., & Lallemand, N. (2012). Career adapt-abilities scale-France form: Psychometric properties and relationships to anxiety and motivation, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(3), 962-697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.021

Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, 36(4), 717–731.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan,M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 612-624. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.612

Reinders H. (2006), Jugendtypen zwischen Bildung und Freizeit. Theoretische Präzisierung und empirische Prüfung einer differenziellen Theorie der Adoleszenz [Youth types between education and leisure. Theoretical specification and empirical testing of a differential theory of adolescence]. Waxmann.

Reinders, H., Bergs-Winkels, D., Butz, P., & Claßen, G. (2001), Typologische Entwicklungswege Jugendlicher. Die horizontale Dimension sozialräumlicher Entfaltung. In J. Mansel, W. Schweins, & M. Ulbrich-Herrmann (Eds.), Zukunftsperspektiven Jugendlicher. Wirtschaftliche und soziale Entwicklungen als Herausforderung und Bedrohung für die Lebensplanung (pp. 200–216). Juventa Verlag.

Reinders, H., & Butz, P. (2001), Entwicklungswege Jugendlicher zwischen Transition und Moratorium [Typological development paths of young people. The horizontal dimension of socio-spatial development]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 47(6), 913–928. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:4325

Rękosiewicz, M. (2013a), Kwestionariusz partycypacji społecznej (KPS): Konstrukcja i analiza właściwości psychometrycznych [Social Participation Questionnaire (SPQ):Construction and Analysis of Psychometric Characteristics], Studia Psychologiczne, 51(3), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10167-010-0071-4

Rękosiewicz, M. (2013b), Type of social participation and identity formation in adolescence and emerging adulthood. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 44(3), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.2478/ppb-2013-0031

Rękosiewicz, M. (2014). Orientacja życiowa i typ partycypacji społecznej w okresie adolescencji i wyłaniającej się dorosłości. Kontekst edukacyjny [Life orientation and type of social participation in adolescence and emerging adulthood. Educational context]. Psychologia Rozwojowa, 19(4), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.4467/20843879PR.14.025.2964

Rossier, J. (2015). Career adaptability and life designing. In L. Nota, & J. Rossier (Eds.), Handbook of life design: From practice to theory and from theory to practice (pp. 153–167). Hogrefe Publishing.

Rossier, J., Zecca, G., Staufer, S. D., Maggiori, Ch.,  & Dauwalder, J. (2012). Career Adapt-Abilities Scale in a French-speaking Swiss sample: Psychometric properties and relationships to personality and work engagement, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(3), 734-743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.004

Rottinghaus, P. J., Buelow, K. L., Matyja, A., & Schneider, M. R. (2012). The Career Futures Inventory–Revised: Measuring dimensions of career adaptability. Journal of Career Assessment, 20(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711420849

Rudolph, C., Lavigne, K., & Zacher, H. (2017). Career adaptability: A meta-analysis of relationships with measures of adaptivity, adapting responses and adaptation results. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 98, 17-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.09.002

Savickas, M. L. (2002). Career construction: A developmental theory of vocational behavior. In D. Brown (Ed.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 149–205), Jossey-Bass.

Savickas, M. L. (2005). The theory and practice of career construction. In S. D. Brown, & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career Development and Counseling: Putting Theory and Research to Work (pp. 42-70). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Savickas, M. L. (2011). Career counseling. American Psychological Association Books.

Savickas, M. L. (2012a). Career construction theory and practice. In S.D. Brown, & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (2nd ed., pp. 147–183) Wiley.

Savickas, M. L. (2012b). Life design: A paradigm for career intervention in the 21st century. Journal of Counseling and Development, 90(1), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-6676.2012.00002.x

Savickas, M. L. (2013). Career construction theory and practice. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (2nd ed., pp. 147–183). Wiley.

Savickas, M. L., & Porfeli, E. J. (2012). Career Adapt-Abilities Scale: Construction, reliability, and measurement equivalence across 13 countries. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 661-673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.011

Savickas, M.L. & Portfeli, E. J. (2015). The Career Adapt-Abilities Scale + Cooperation Scale. Retrieved June 24, 2020, from http://www.vocopher.com/ms/cmic/CAAS+C.pdf 

Settersten, R. (2011). Becoming adult: Meaning and makers for young Americans. In M. C. Waters, P. J. Carr, M. J. Kefals, & J. Holdaway (Eds.). Coming of age in America: The transition to adulthood in twenty-first century (pp. 169-190). University of California Press.

Super, D. E. (1953). A theory of vocational development. American Psychologist, 8(5), 185-190. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056046

Super, D. E. (1957). The Psychology of Careers, New York: Harper & Row.

Super, D. E. (1984). Career and Life Development. In D. Brown, & L. Brooks (Eds.), Career Choice and Development (pp. 192-234). Jossey-Bass Publishers. 

Super, D. E. (1990). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. In  D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates (Eds.), Career choice and development: Applying contemporary theories to practice (pp. 197–261) (2nd ed). Jossey-Bass.

Super, D. E. (1994). A life Span, Life Space. Perspective on Convergence. In M. L. Savickas, & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Convergence in Career Development Theories (pp. 63-74). CPP BOOKS.

Super, D. E., & Knasel, E. G. (1981). Career development in adulthood: Some theoretical problems. British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 9(2), 194–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069888100760211

Vianen, A. E. M., Klehe, U., Koen, J., & Dries, N. (2012). Career adapt-abilities scale — Netherlands form: Psychometric properties and relationships to ability, personality, and regulatory focus, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(3), 716-724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.002

Wiszejko-Wierzbicka, D., & Kwiatkowska, A. (2018) Wchodzenie w dorosłość. Ogólnopolskie badanie młodych Polaków w wieku 18-29 lat [Entering Adulthood in Poland: A Report from the Nationwide Survey of Young Poles Aged 18-29]. Studia Socjologiczne, 2 (229). 147 – 176, https://doi.org/10.24425/122467

Zagórska,W. (2004). Uczestnictwo młodych dorosłych w rzeczywistości wykreowanej kulturowo [Participation of Young Adults in Culture Created Reality]. Universitas.

Declarations

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial and non-financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper