The relationship between goal orientation and careerstriving in young adolescentsPeter Creed1, Nick Buys2, Clare Tilbury2, Meegan Crawford2

1School of Applied Psychology, Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University2School of Human Services and Social Work, Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University

Correspondence concerning this article shouldbe addressed to Peter Creed, School of AppliedPsychology, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD4222, Australia.E-mail: p.creed@griffith.edu.au

doi: 10.1111/jasp.12108

Abstract

We surveyed 280 students (61% girls; M = 15.3 years) and, in the context of goalsetting theory and self-regulation, tested a cross-sectional model in which goalorientation (learning, performance–prove, performance–avoid) was viewed as anantecedent to self-efficacy and outcome expectations, self-efficacy and outcomeexpectations were tested as antecedents to goal setting, and goal setting tested as anantecedent to career-striving behaviors (exploration, planning). After controllingfor educational achievement, learning orientation was directly, positively, associatedwith self-efficacy and outcome expectations, and indirectly associated with careeraspirations, career exploration, and planning; and performance–avoid orientationwas negatively associated with self-efficacy. The study demonstrated that goal orien-tation is an important variable to consider when examining career development inadolescents.

Goal setting and self-regulation

In recent years, adolescent career development has beenincreasingly characterized as career adaptability (Creed,Fallon, & Hood, 2009; Hirschi, 2009), which is defined as“thereadiness to cope with the predictable [and unpredictable]tasks of preparing for and participating in the work role”(Savickas, 1997, p. 254), or as “the way an individual views hisor her capacity to plan and adjust to changing career plans . . .especially in the face of unforeseen events” (Rottinghaus,Day, & Borgen, 2005, p. 5). These definitions construe careeradaptability as self-regulatory thoughts and behaviors associ-ated with managing the steps and processes of achievingcareer-related goals, such as deciding on a career that willsatisfy, obtaining the training required for the career, andmaking the transition to paid employment. From a goalsetting perspective (cf. Locke & Latham, 2002), self-regulatory behaviors are implemented to diminish the dis-crepancy between where an individual seeks to be and theircurrent situation (Kanfer, Wanberg, & Kantrowitz, 2001;Maes & Karoly, 2005).

A potentially important antecedent to self-regulatoryprocesses is one’s goal orientation, which has been conceptu-alized as a somewhat stable, trait-like characteristic thatoperates as the mental framework within which individuals

appraise and react to achievement situations, such as meetingcareer-related goals (Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007).Most literature suggests three types of goal orientation, learn-ing, performance–prove, and performance–avoid, which, inachievement situations, affect the individual’s level and typeof goal attainment by influencing the type and quality of self-regulation that is employed; that is, goal orientation influ-ences “the quality, timing, and appropriateness of cognitivestrategies that . . . control the quality of one’s accomplish-ments” (Covington, 2000, p. 174).

The current study examined several aspects of careerdevelopment from a self-regulatory and goal setting perspec-tive. We report on career aspirations (i.e., career goals), thecareer behaviors associated with achieving those aspirations(i.e., career exploration and career planning), the social-cognitive influences on the development of career aspirations(i.e., perceptions of self-efficacy and outcome expectationbeliefs), and the trait-like strategies of goal orientation (i.e.,learning, performance–prove, and performance–avoid goalorientation), which can be considered individual or personinputs that contribute to career development (Lent, 2005),and which reflect the individual’s preferred manner of pursu-ing achievement-related goals (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996).

The perspective taken in this paper is consistent withgoal setting theory generally, for example, where goals are

bs_bs_banner

Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 1480–1490

© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 1480–1490

identified, plans are made, goal-striving behaviors occur,goals are evaluated and revised, and outcomes are met, or notmet (Locke & Latham, 2002; Lord, Diefendorff, Schmidt, &Hall, 2010). It is also consistent with specific career goalsetting models, such as social-cognitive career theory (Lent,Brown, & Hackett, 1996). Social-cognitive career theory pro-poses that the three key variables of self-efficacy, outcomeexpectations, and goal setting represent personal agency, oradaptability, in the career domain, mediate past experiencesand more stable person-traits, and drive career-relatedbehaviors. These three key variables have been described asthe building blocks of career development (Lent et al., 1996,p. 380).As career aspirations are important life goals, examin-ing career development from a goal setting and self-regulatory perspective is likely to extend our understandingof how young people set career-related goals and go aboutmeeting them.

Career aspirations

For the purpose of this study, we operationalized career goalsas career aspirations, which are “an individual’s expressedcareer-related goals or choices”(Rojewski, 2005, p. 132).Aspi-rations are central to the career choice process, as they influ-ence educational and training decisions and are stronglyassociated with future occupational selection and achieve-ment (Mau & Bikos, 2000; Schoon & Parsons, 2002). Careergoals (i.e., career aspirations) drive the motivational proc-esses and striving behaviors that the individual sets in train toassist with goal achievement. Career aspirations can be con-sidered at multiple levels. They reflect an individual’s goal fora specific occupational area (e.g., the desire to work in thehealth area) or a specific occupation (e.g., the desire to be amedical practitioner), but also are considered along multipleother dimensions, including level of prestige, traditionality,the training required, and lifestyle (Creed, Searle, & Rogers,2010). We operationalized career aspirations as leadershipaspirations, which reflect the level of authority and responsi-bility desired in a career.

Career-striving behaviors

We operationalized career goal striving as career explorationand planning, which are important career-striving behaviorsthat help to convert career aspirations into actual career out-comes for the individual (Lent et al., 1996). Career planningrelates to the thinking and preparation one undertakes for thefuture; whereas career exploration involves the gathering ofinformation about the self and the environment, primarilythe world of work, that is relevant to making career relateddecisions (Blustein, 1997). Both are ongoing, life-long activi-ties that typically come into focus in a crisis or during a tran-sition (Zikic & Klehe, 2006), and both have been associatedwith success in the career domain (Hall, 2002).

Social-cognitive variables

Consistent with social-cognitive career theory, we consideredself-efficacy and outcome expectations as antecedents tocareer aspirations. Career self-efficacy refers to an individu-al’s beliefs about his/her capacity to carry out successfully thetasks associated with achieving career-related goals, whereasoutcome expectations represent contingency beliefs aboutthe likely outcome of performing a particular task (Bandura,1986; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2000). The antecedentsthat influence the development of self-efficacy and outcomeexpectations are the personal characteristics and environ-mental experiences of the individual, which includepredispositions to think and act in particular ways, pastaccomplishment experiences, vicarious learning and mod-eling, encouragement from others, and the ability to managethe emotions associated with a task. From this perspective,elevated self-efficacy and outcome expectations result fromexperiencing success, having successful models to learn from,receiving appropriate encouragement for tasks, and, forexample, being able to manage anxiety when engaging incareer development behaviors. Outcome expectations for theindividual are also dependent on self-efficacy beliefs, as self-efficacy increases (or decreases) the probability of the indi-vidual setting a particular goal or engaging in a particulargoal-striving behavior.

There is considerable research evidence from both adultand children populations that suggests that the particulargoal orientation of the individual directly affects goal settingand goal-striving behaviors (e.g., Payne et al., 2007; Utman,1997; Valentini & Rudisill, 2006). Further, goal orientationhas been characterized as an antecedent to task specific effi-cacy (e.g., career self-efficacy) and expectations of success(Payne et al., 2007; Valentini & Rudisill, 2006). Thus, the aimof the current study was to test a goal setting and self-regulatory model, in which goal orientation, construed as apredisposition to manage achievement tasks in a particularmanner, was an antecedent to self-efficacy and outcomeexpectations, where the social-cognitive variables of self-efficacy and outcome expectations were antecedents to goalsetting, and where goal setting was an antecedent to career-striving behaviors. Consistent with previous research andtheory, we also expected self-efficacy to be a proximal ante-cedent to outcome expectations. See Figure 1 for a visual rep-resentation of this model.

There is extensive support in the career literature for therelationships among self-efficacy, outcome expectations, goalsetting, and striving behaviors (Betz & Hackett, 2006).However, few studies have tested the influence of goal orien-tation on the beliefs and behaviors around career develop-ment. Creed et al. (2009) showed that the goal orientationof university students was associated with several career-related variables, including career exploration and career

Creed et al. 1481

© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 1480–1490

decision-making, while Creed, Tilbury, Buys, and Crawford(2011) tested a cross-lagged model across two time points andfound support for goal orientation as a precursor to careeraspirations in high school students. The remainder of thisintroduction will focus on the potential effects of goal orien-tation on career development.

Goal orientation

From a goal orientation perspective, individuals interpret,experience, and behave differently in achievement situationsdepending on whether they adopt a learning, performance–prove, or performance–avoid orientation (Dweck, 1986;Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Individuals with a high learning goalorientation are likely to set difficult and challenging goals.They do this as they see it as the way of developing competen-cies and capital. This occurs as they view ability as a flexiblecharacteristic, which can be fostered and developed throughchallenge. Learning-oriented individuals believe outcomesare contingent on effort. Thus, they are more engaged inbehaviors, such as planning and goal striving, which, in turn,increases the probability of them meeting their goals. As theyview ability as flexible and able to be developed, poor per-formance, setbacks, and obstacles are interpreted as feedbackon their efforts. Consistent with goal setting theories, includ-ing social-cognitive career theory, which incorporate feed-back loops, this feedback then either fosters increasedeffort and application, or triggers goal or strategy revisions(VandeWalle, Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1999). Learning-oriented individuals also experience more positive outcomesas they seek higher challenges, invest more effort, are morepersistent, and are more likely to accept feedback on theirefforts and revise their strategies. Thus, having a predisposi-tion to a learning orientation promotes “the establishment,maintenance, and attainment of personally challenging andpersonally valued achievement goals”(Dweck, 1986, p. 1040).Consistent with this, reviews of the area have demonstrated

positive relationships between a learning goal orientation andknowledge acquisition and academic achievement in chil-dren (Valentini & Rudisill, 2006), and between a learning goalorientation and job performance in adults (Payne et al.,2007). In the careers’ area, those with a high learning goal ori-entation should set higher career goals, be more engaged intheir achievement, and have more positive outcomes.

Learning and performance–prove goal orientations areboth approach orientations (Elliot & Thrash, 2002). Inapproach orientations, individuals are focused on achieve-ment and success; whereas avoidant orientations (i.e.,performance–avoid orientation) involve motivation strate-gies that seek to avoid negative outcomes (Jackson, Hobman,Jimmieson, & Martin, 2009). However, unlike those with alearning orientation, individuals with a performance–proveorientation view ability largely as a fixed characteristic; onethat is difficult to develop. As a result of this, they are focusedon gaining favorable feedback from others on the ability/competence they have, which they do by demonstrating theirprowess and achieving success (Dweck, 1986; Dweck &Leggett, 1988). Thus, individuals with a high performance–prove goal orientation will also set high goals, especiallywhere success is likely, as this can lead to receiving positivefeedback from others on their ability and accomplishments.Positive effects result from a performance–prove goal orien-tation more often in situations where tasks can be easilymastered and are fairly routinized, rather than when theyare complex and demanding (Davis, Carson, Ammeter, &Treadway, 2005). Consistent with this, performance–proveindividuals are less engaged in goal-striving behaviors, as, tothem, effort is an indication of low ability. Further, persist-ence is poor as goals generated to demonstrate ability are lesslikely to be motivating intrinsically and sustaining interestand effort. Thus, those with a performance–prove orientationmight set high goals, as these reflect an orientation to dobetter than others, but might expend less effort and persist-ence in achieving them as they are not intrinsically rewarding,

Performance–avoid GO

Learning GO

Career Self-efficacy

Performance–prove GO

Outcome Expectations

Career Exploration

Career Aspirations

H3

H2

H1

H4

H5

H6

H7

H9-Mediation

H10-Mediation

Career Planning

H8

Figure 1 Hypothesized model, with career self-efficacy and outcome expectations mediating the relationship between goal orientation and careeraspirations, and career self-efficacy, outcome expectations and career aspirations mediating the relationship between goal orientation and career explo-ration and planning.

1482 Goal orientation and career striving

© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 1480–1490

and be less successful at goal achievement. Research to datehas demonstrated mostly positive relationships between aperformance–prove orientation and performance outcomes,although the effects are generally weaker than those for learn-ing goal orientation (Payne et al., 2007; Yeo, Sorbello, Koy, &Smillie, 2008).

Finally, a performance–avoid goal orientation is an avoid-ant rather than an approach orientation (Elliot & Thrash,2002). Performance–avoid individuals, like performance–prove individuals, also hold a fixed view of ability, but seek toprotect their view of themselves by avoiding being seen asincompetent. Thus, they set low goals to reduce the risk ofnegative outcomes, failure, and adverse feedback from others.This orientation also stimulates self-protection processessuch as effort withdrawal and self-handicapping, which inter-fere with goal-striving motivations and behaviors and reducegoal achievement (Elliot, Shell, Bouas Henry, & Maier, 2005;VandeWalle, 1997). Those high on performance–avoid orien-tation are reluctant to ask for help, feel anxious about scrutinyas this might disclose a lack of ability, and are less confidentin their capacity to carry out tasks and achieve outcomes(Middleton & Midgley, 1997). Empirical studies haveconsistently identified negative relationships between aperformance–avoid orientation and striving and perform-ance in adults (Payne et al., 2007), children, and adolescents(Valentini & Rudisill, 2006).

Hypotheses

Thus, based on the goal orientation literature, we expectedthe approach orientations (learning [H1] and performance–prove [H2] ) to be associated positively with career self-efficacy and outcome expectations, and expected the avoidantorientation (performance–avoid [H3] ) to be associatednegatively with career self-efficacy and outcome expecta-tions. Based on the social-cognitive career literature, weexpected career self-efficacy to be associated positively withoutcome expectations (H4) and career aspirations (H5),outcome expectations to be associated positively with careeraspirations (H6), and career aspirations to be associated posi-tively with the career-striving behaviors of exploration (H7)and planning (H8).As self-efficacy and outcome expectationsare considered the most proximal variables to goal setting,and to mediate antecedent person and contextual variables,we expected career self-efficacy and outcome expectations tomediate the relationship between goal orientation and careeraspirations [H9], and, as self-efficacy, outcome expectationsand goal setting have been conceptualized as driving career-related striving behaviors, we expected career self-efficacy,outcome expectation and career aspirations to mediate therelationship between goal orientation and the career-strivingbehaviors of exploration [H10] and planning [H11]. SeeFigure 1.

Method

Participants

We surveyed 287 high school students in Queensland, Aus-tralia. Seven surveys were discarded as they had been started,but not completed. The remaining 280 students comprised172 girls (61.4%) and 108 boys, with a mean age of 15.3 years(standard deviation = 1.2). There were 124 students (44.3%)enrolled in Junior High (Grades 8 and 9) and 156 enrolled insenior high (Grades 10–12).

Materials

The survey contained measures of goal orientation, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, career aspirations, careerexploration and planning. We also assessed age, grade,gender, and self-reported level of school achievement. Unlessotherwise indicated, the students responded to scale itemsusing a 5-point Likert-like response format with endpoints of1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree, with higher scoresrepresenting higher levels of a construct.

Career aspirations

We measured an important domain of career aspirationsthat is related to the goal of achieving highly in one’s career.Individuals, who want to do well in their career aspire toleadership positions, want to be promoted, and commit toadditional education and training. Based on a factor analysisreported by Gray and O’Brien (2007), we selected four itemsfrom the Aspiring to Leadership and Promotions subscale ofthe Career Aspirations Scale (O’Brien, 1996). This scale tapsaspirations to becoming a leader and being promoted whenin work. Sample items were, “When I am established in myworking life: I would like to manage other workers/I wouldlike to become an expert in my field.” O’Brien reported aninternal reliability coefficient of .74 with the full scale, andfound significant associations for the scale with career sali-ence, academic achievement, and career self-efficacy insupport of construct validity. We conducted a confirmatoryfactor analysis (CFA), which indicated a good fit for asingle factor, c2(2) = 4.90, p = .09, c2/degrees of freedom(df) = 2.45, comparative fit index (CFI) = .99, root meansquare error of approximation (RMSEA) = .07; internal reli-ability was .70.

Career-striving behaviors

We measured two career goal-striving behaviors: careerexploration and career planning. These were assessed usingtwo subscales of the Career Development Inventory—ShortForm (Creed & Patton, 2004; Lokan, 1984). The 8-item careerexploration subscale taps the type and usefulness of career

Creed et al. 1483

© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 1480–1490

exploration undertaken (e.g., “Would you ask any of thesepeople for information or help to make plans for work orfurther education . . . ?”, with options such as teachers andguidance officers). The 10-item career planning subscaleassesses the range and degree of career planning undertaken(e.g., “How much have you thought and planned aboutchoosing a career in general?”, with endpoints of Not much atall and A great deal). Creed and Patton (2004) reported inter-nal reliabilities of .73 (exploration) and .87 (planning), andfound support for construct validity by demonstrating posi-tive associations between the two scales and career self-efficacy and career decidedness, strong correlations betweenthe short-form and long-form versions of the scales, andby finding age and gender differences in the expected direc-tions. CFA analyses produced satisfactory fit statistics forsingle factors for both exploration, c2(16) = 37.74, p = .002,c2/df = 2.36, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .07, and planning,c2(28) = 38.73, p = .09, c2/df = 1.38, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .04;alphas were .73 and .86, respectively.

Career self-efficacy

Fouad, Smith, and Enochs (1997) constructed a 12-item scaleto measure how confident students were in carrying out arange of tasks associated with choosing a career. This 12-itemscale used selected questions from the 50-item CareerDecision-making Self-efficacy Scale (Taylor & Betz, 1983).Sample items were, “How confident are you that you couldfind information in the library about a career you were inter-ested in?”, and “How confident are you that you could choosea job that would suit your interests?”.We used nine items fromthe Fouad et al. scale, deleting three items that were not suit-able for our sample (e.g., “. . . choose a career in which mostworkers are the opposite sex?”). Fouad et al. reported aninternal reliability of .79, and demonstrated validity byshowing that the scale was structurally independent of, butpositively related to, other career scales such as careeroutcome expectations and career goals. A CFA produced asatisfactory fit for a single factor for the nine items,c2(23) = 29.36, p = .17, c2/df = 1.28, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .03;alpha was .87.

Career outcome expectations

We used nine questions based on the format of the 5-itemCareer Decision Making Outcome Expectancy Scale (Fouadet al., 1997), which used conditional statements (i.e., if I dothis, then I expect that) to tap career expectations in relationto effort expended. A sample item from the Fouad et al. scaleis,“If I know about the education I need for different careers, Iwill make a better career decision.” We included four addi-tional items to assess a broader construct and to give theopportunity to delete items that did not work (sample items

that we included were, “The time I spend deciding upon theright job will be worth it,” and “The time I spend on my edu-cation will be worth it to get the job I am interested in”).Fouad et al. reported an alpha of .70 for their five items, dem-onstrated scale independence from, and positive associationswith, other career-related scales (career self-efficacy, careergoals). A CFA identified a satisfactory fit for one factor for thenine items, c2(23) = 54.12, p < .001, c2/df = 2.35, CFI = .98,RMSEA = .07; alpha was .92.

Goal orientation

We assessed three aspects of goal orientation, namely learn-ing, performance–prove, and performance–avoid orienta-tions. Urdan and Midgley (2003) generated 18 items toassess goal orientation, and used these with a sample of highschool students. We selected nine of the most appropriateitems for our study. These items were phrased as generalorientation (e.g., “I like school work . . .) rather than specific(e.g., “I like maths work . . .”). Sample items were, “I likeschool work that I will learn from, even if I make a lot ofmistakes” (learning), “I’d like to show my teachers that I’msmarter than the other students in my class” (performance–prove), and “It’s very important to me that I don’t lookstupid in my class” (performance–avoid). Urdan andMidgley reported satisfactory internal reliability coefficientsfor their learning (six items; a = .80–.86 for children acrossgrades 5–7), performance–prove (six items; a = .84–.86),and performance–avoid measures (six items; a = .78–.82).Urdan and Midgley’s three measures were independent ofone another, and support for construct validity was demon-strated by finding associations in the expected directionswith scales of academic efficacy, learning strategies, andaffect at school (Midgley et al., 1998). A CFA demonstratedthat a three-factor model for our 3-item measures fit ourdata well, c2(20) = 41.54, p = .003, c2/df = 2.08, CFI = .97,RMSEA = .06. Our three measures were related to otherscales in the study in the expected direction using zero-order and latent variable correlations (see Table 1). Theinternal reliability coefficients were .81, .76, and .60,respectively.

Procedure

Teachers distributed the surveys in class time in the stu-dents’ homerooms. Students were encouraged to completethe survey in their own time and return it in a sealed enve-lope to the teacher. As an encouragement to participate, weoffered students who returned their survey to have theirnames placed in a draw to win a prize. About 50% of stu-dents in the school returned a survey. The study was con-ducted under the auspices of the authors’ university ethics’committee.

1484 Goal orientation and career striving

© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 1480–1490

Results

Data management

We replaced missing Likert item responses with the personmean for that scale. This procedure has been recommendedby Roth, Switzer, and Switzer (1999) for managing item-level(rather than variable-level) missing data where the pattern ofmissing data is either random or systematic.

We created latent variables using a combination ofobserved items and multi-item parcels. The learning,performance–prove, and performance–avoid goal orienta-tion latent variables were each represented by three individualobserved items; the aspirations latent variable was repre-sented by four observed items. We created multi-item parcelsto represent self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and careerexploration and planning, which were longer scales. The pro-cedure for creating the multi-item parcels was to subject theitems of each scale to separate exploratory factor analyseswhere the extraction was restricted to one factor. We thenallocated the highest and lowest loading items to the firstparcel, the second highest and lowest to the second parcel, andthe third highest and lowest to the third parcel, and repeatedthese steps until all items were exhausted. Parcels were thenformed by summing the items allocated to them (see Landis,Beal, & Tesluck, 2000).

Model testing

We assessed (a) the measurement model for the variablesbeing tested; (b) the hypothesized structural model. Asseveral authors have suggested testing alternate models to thehypothesized model to help clarify different plausible causalsequences (e.g., Byrne, 2010; Kline, 2011); (c) we also assessedtwo additional structural models and tested their fit againstthe fit of the hypothesized model; (d) next we examinedwhether self-efficacy and outcome expectations mediated therelationship between goal orientation and career aspirations;

and (e) examined whether self-efficacy, outcome expecta-tions, and career aspirations mediated the relationshipbetween goal orientation and the career-striving behaviors.As educational achievement was significantly, bivariatelyassociated with all model variables, we controlled for this inall analyses by modeling the association between educationalachievement and all endogenous variables. We found nomeaningful associations between age or gender and modelvariables, and thus, excluded these variables from the analy-ses. See Table 1 for bivariate correlations.

Analyses were conducted using maximum likelihood esti-mation within the AMOS software (AMOS 6.0 user’s guide,SPSS Incorporated, Chicago, IL, USA). We examined c2, theCFI and the RMSEA as indices of fit for the models (Byrne,2010). The c2 and CFI indices compare a specified model toone with complete independence, with a non-significant c2

and CFI values >.90–.95 indicating a good model fit. TheRMSEA estimates the error due to the approximate fit of themodel. The less error the better; thus, RMSEA values <.05–.08are desirable. As the c2 statistic is sensitive to sample size (themore participants, the higher the c2 value), it is recom-mended that it be used with caution and to consider also a c2

value two to three times greater than the degrees of freedomas acceptable (Byrne, 2010). Thus, we also considered thec2/df statistic.

Predicting aspirations and striving behaviors

First, we used CFA to test if all items and multi-itemparcels represented the latent variables as intended. Thismeasurement model consisted of the eight latent variablesrepresenting goal orientation (learning, performance–prove,performance–avoid), self-efficacy, outcome expectations,career aspirations and career-striving behaviors (planningand exploration), and included the observed variable of edu-cational achievement. The eight latent variables and educa-tional achievement were allowed to covary freely. The fitstatistics, c2(261) = 443.98, p < .001, c2/df = 1.70, CFI = .95,

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Zero-Order Correlations (below Diagonal), and Correlations among Latent Variables (above Diagonal); (n = 280)

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Learning GO 11.01 2.57 — .47*** -.14 .53*** .63*** .41*** .49*** .60*** .45***2. Performance–prove GO 10.47 2.69 .35*** — .32*** .31*** .32*** .34*** .28*** .29*** .22**3. Performance–avoid GO 8.29 2.45 -.02 .28*** — -.21** -.30*** -.15 .03 -.04 -.30***4. Self-efficacy 34.06 6.74 .45*** .25*** -.13* — .77*** .61*** .64*** .79*** .31***5. Outcome expectations 37.89 5.43 .54*** .26*** -.19** .71*** — .67*** .63*** .72*** .45***6. Career aspirations 15.95 2.76 .35*** .24*** -.12* .54*** .59*** — .62*** .56*** .22***7. Career exploration 26.37 6.51 .40*** .22*** .04 .51*** .53*** .47*** — .76*** .16*8. Career planning 35.73 8.04 .46*** .21*** -.01 .69*** .66*** .47*** .60*** — .29***9. Education achievement 3.86 .87 .40*** .18* -.23*** .30*** .42*** .19** .13* .26*** —

10. Age 15.26 1.22 -.08 -.10 -.09 .05 -.04 .06 .11 .07 -.19**11. Gender — — .09 .01 .07 .05 .01 .09 .07 .05 -.02

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Creed et al. 1485

© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 1480–1490

RMSEA = .05, demonstrated a satisfactory fit for these data.Table 1 reports correlations among the latent variables.

Second, we tested the hypothesized structural modelshown in Figure 1, while controlling for educational achieve-ment. This model produced satisfactory fit statistics,c2(272) = 465.38, p < .001, c2/df = 1.71, CFI = .95, RMSEA =.05. Three hypothesized model pathways (performance–avoid → outcome expectations, performance–prove →self-efficacy, performance prove → outcome expectations)and four educational achievement pathways (educationalachievement pathways to self-efficacy, aspirations, explora-tion, and planning) were progressively removed as they werenot significant. This final model (see Figure 2) also produceda satisfactory fit, c2(279) = 475.60, p < .001, c2/df = 1.69,CFI = .95, RMSEA = .05. Learning goal orientation andperformance–avoid orientation accounted for 32.7% of thevariance in self-efficacy. Learning goal orientation, self-efficacy, and educational achievement accounted for 66.6%of the variance in outcome expectations. Self-efficacy andoutcome expectations accounted for 68.0% of the variance incareer aspirations. Finally, career aspirations accounted for53.0% of the variance in career exploration, and 36.8% of thevariance in career planning.

Alternate model testing

As goal orientation might relate to the other variables in thehypothesized model in different ways (i.e., apart from goalorientation being conceived as the most distal variables tocareer exploration and career planning), we assessed twoplausible, alternate models. The first was that self-efficacy andoutcome expectations would predict the goal orientationvariables, which in turn would predict aspirations and thenexploration and planning. This model is plausible as, forexample, having higher self-efficacy and outcome expecta-tions might lead to a reduced performance–avoid orientationas the goal outcome is perceived as achievable. The second

model was that self-efficacy and outcome expectations wouldpredict aspirations, that aspirations would predict the goalorientation variables, which in turn would predict explora-tion and planning. This model is also reasonable as, forexample, having higher aspirations might lead to an increasedperformance–prove orientation as an achievement orienta-tion is required to meet these goals. We compared these twoalternate models against the hypothesized model presented inFigure 1 using the standard fit statistics and the Akaike infor-mation criterion (AIC), which assesses for parsimony amongcompeting non-hierarchical models that use the same data(Kline, 2011). The fit indices for the first, c2(277) = 488.08,p < .001, c2/df = 1.76, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .05, and secondalternate models, c2(274) = 476.86, p < .001, c2/df = 1.74,CFI = .95, RMSEA = .05, were acceptable and only margin-ally poorer than the final hypothesized model. However, thehypothesized model was accepted as the preferred model asthis model produced the lowest AIC statistic (619.60 vs.636.08 and 630.86, respectively), and was thus the mostparsimonious.

Tests of mediation

In the final structural model, career self-efficacy and outcomeexpectations potentially mediated the relationship betweengoal orientation (learning and performance–avoid) andcareer aspirations (both goal orientation latent variables werebivariately associated with career aspirations; see Table 1).Career self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and career aspira-tions potentially mediated the relationship between learninggoal orientation and career exploration and career planning,as this predictor variable alone was bivariately correlated withthe two career-striving outcome variables (see Table 1). Wefollowed the recommendations of Shrout and Bolger (2002)to test if these mediation pathways were significant. For eachpathway, we tested two structural models, one that tested thedirect effects only (e.g., learning goal orientation predicting

Performance–avoid GO

Learning GO

Career Self-efficacy

Performance–prove GO

Outcome Expectations

Career Exploration

Career Aspirations

.54***Career

Planning

Educational achievement

-.12*

.54***

.29***

.16***

.39***

.49***

.98***

.73***

Figure 2 Simplified final model, reported with standardized regression weights.

1486 Goal orientation and career striving

© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 1480–1490

career aspirations), and one that tested both the direct andindirect effects. We used the AMOS bootstrapping procedurewith 1,000 samples to estimate standard errors and 90% bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs) for all direct and indirectestimates. Mediation occurs when the predictor is signifi-cantly associated with the outcome, the mediator is signifi-cantly associated with both the predictor and the outcome,and the 90% CIs of the indirect effect via the mediator do notinclude zero.

When we tested the direct paths, learning goal orientation(b = .45; p < .001), but not performance–avoid goal orienta-tion (b = -.10; p = .23), was associated significantly withcareer aspirations (after controlling for educational achieve-ment). Thus, only learning goal orientation met this criterionfor mediation. Additionally, learning goal orientation wasassociated significantly with career planning (b = .57;p < .001) and career exploration (b = .54; p < .001), againafter controlling for educational achievement. When wetested the direct and indirect effects together, learning goalorientation was no longer directly associated with careeraspirations (b = -.06; p = .45), and the CIs did not containzero (CI = .22–.44), indicating that career self-efficacy andoutcome expectations fully mediated the relationshipbetween learning goal orientation and career aspiration.Using the same procedures, when we examined the indirectrelationship between learning goal orientation and careerexploration and planning, we found full mediation effects forlearning goal orientation on career planning (b = .12; p = .09;CI = 1.02–1.91) and a partial mediation effect for careerexploration (b = .19; p = .02; CI = .37–.89).

Discussion

The present study used a self-regulatory and goal-orientedapproach to career development and tested the relationshipbetween goal orientation (learning, performance–prove,performance–avoid) and several important career-relatedvariables (career self-efficacy, outcome expectations, aspira-tions, and striving behaviors). We proposed a model in whichgoal orientation was an antecedent to career self-efficacy andoutcome expectations, where self-efficacy predicted outcomeexpectations and career aspirations, outcome expectationsalso predicted career aspirations, and where career aspira-tions predicted the career-striving behaviors of planning andexploration. This model controlled for the effect of educa-tional achievement.

Consistent with social-cognitive career theory (Lent et al.,1996), we found the relationships among the social-cognitivevariables to be as expected: career self-efficacy was associatedpositively with outcome expectations (H4) and career aspira-tions (H5), outcome expectations was associated positivelywith career aspirations (H6), and career aspirations was asso-ciated positively with the career-striving behaviors (H7 and

H8). These results are consistent with the general careerdevelopment literature (e.g., see Betz & Hackett, 2006), andsupport the external validity of the study, suggesting theresults can be generalized to other similar populations. Theyalso reinforce the value for young people of developing spe-cific career related self-efficacy and a contingency relation-ship between effort and outcomes, as these are associatedwith higher career aspirations as well as career-related plan-ning and exploration. Thus, interventions that foster careerconfidence and the value of personal effort in the careerdomain are likely to advantage young people directly, as wellas benefit them in other career development domains.

We found a learning goal orientation to be associated posi-tively with career self-efficacy and outcome expectations(H1), and found a performance–avoid orientation to be asso-ciated negatively with career self-efficacy (partially support-ing H3). These results are consistent with the general researchon goal orientation (e.g., see Payne et al., 2007), which hasshown that, on the one hand, efficacious individuals display alearning goal orientation, and that, on the other, it is thosewho have a performance–avoid orientation, who are morelikely to employ self-defeating behaviors. Fostering a learningorientation generally, and specifically in relation to careerdevelopment, and intervening when young people have aperformance–avoid orientation should advantage youngpeople in their career development.

Additionally, career self-efficacy and outcome expectationsmediated the relationship between a learning goal orienta-tion and career aspirations (partially supporting H9), andself-efficacy, outcome expectations, and career aspirationsmediated the relationship between a learning goal orienta-tion and the career-striving behaviors of exploration andplanning (partially supporting H10). These results also areconsistent with social-cognitive career theory, with self-efficacy and outcome expectations being considered the mostproximally related variables to goal setting, and strivingbehaviors being proximal to goals (Bandura, 1986). Theseresults suggest that a learning goal orientation enhancescareer self-efficacy and outcome expectations, and is indi-rectly associated with elevated career aspirations, careerexploration and planning. One previous study has shownthat a learning goal orientation is associated with bettercareer decision-making and more self-exploration (Creedet al., 2011), which suggests that having a learning goal orien-tation might be associated positively with a wider range ofcareer related variables. We found no such mediationeffects for performance–avoid goal orientation. While aperformance–avoid orientation was negatively associatedwith career self-efficacy, there were no indirect effects oncareer aspirations, career exploration or career planning inour sample. Creed et al. (2011) found negative associationsbetween a performance–avoid orientation and threecareer goal-based measures (educational aspirations, job

Creed et al. 1487

© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 1480–1490

aspirations, and job expectations), suggesting that our resultsin relation to performance–avoid might be sample specific, orthat associations might depend on the type of aspirationsconsidered.

Many interventions have been devised that promote thedevelopment of a learning orientation in children (e.g., seeKaplan & Maehr, 2007) and adults (van Hooft & Noordzij,2009). While these interventions have focused on educa-tional achievement for children and job seeking for adults,variations on these programs need to be assessed for use inthe career development domain with children. More gener-ally, standard career interventions for high school studentscould profitably incorporate elements of goal orientationmanagement and training. The evidence from our study isthat fostering a learning goal orientation will be directlyassociated with enhanced efficacy and outcome expecta-tions, and indirectly associated with elevated goals andincreased striving behaviors.

Several authors have characterized performance–avoidorientation as problematic (Brophy, 2004; Payne et al., 2007).This is because the focus for performance–avoid individualsis on trying to avoid negative outcomes, which, in turn,stimulates self-protective strategies, such as being alert toand avoiding threats, being overly concerned with self-presentation, and expending effort on managing anxiety(Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996), all of which detract from taskengagement, striving and achievement. Young people whorely on a performance–avoid orientation in the careerdomain might require special assistance to ensure that theyhave the opportunity to develop appropriate skills andbeliefs, and do not, for example, foreclose on a career too earlyto avoid the stress associated with career exploration, plan-ning and decision-making. Payne et al. (2007) described goalorientation as a malleable construct, meaning that youngpeople with this avoidant orientation are likely to respond totargeted interventions around goal orientation. We foundthat a performance–avoid orientation was associated withlower self-efficacy. Addressing an avoidant orientation inyoung people is likely to have direct benefits for their careerconfidence levels.

We found no relationship between a performance–proveorientation and any of the career variables (H2). Previousstudies have shown a positive effect for a performance–proveorientation in a range of achievement situations, although theeffects were stronger in situations where achievement taskswere simpler and outcome success could be more readilyobtained (Utman, 1997). Career development tasks are notsimple, and outcomes are largely distal to behaviors for youngpeople; thus, there are fewer opportunities for performance–prove individuals to demonstrate competence and receivefavourable feedback from others on their behaviors. Consist-ent with this, Creed et al. (2009) found a learning goal orien-tation associated with four of the career variables used in

their study (self-exploration, career exploration, careerdecision-making, and self-regulation); whereas they foundonly one association for a performance–prove orientation,with career decision-making. It is possible that those with aperformance–prove orientation are not engaging in thecareer development process in the same (positive) wayas learning oriented youth (and are not avoiding it asperformance–avoid youth might), as there are not the samebenefits for engaging in career processes. If this is the case,then young people with this type of approach orientationwould benefit also from strategies that would foster a learningapproach in them.

Limitations and future research

Both learning and performance–avoid orientations havebeen construed by others as part of a cluster of importantcareer adaptability behaviors (Payne et al., 2007). Careeradaptability is growing in importance as a vocational process,and future research needs to test the association between goalorientation and other adaptability behaviors. Consistent withthis, Payne et al. (2007) found that a learning orientation wasassociated with more feedback seeking, another importantadaptive/regulatory strategy. Other researchers have shownthat goal orientation is not stable in childhood, and might, forexample, be influenced by critical school events, such astransitioning from middle to high school (Anderman &Anderman, 1999). Future research needs to examine theeffect any change in goal orientation has on career trajecto-ries. Further, it has been suggested that goal orientation canbe decomposed into state and trait aspects, in the same way,for example, that self-efficacy can be considered as generaland task-specific (Payne et al., 2007). The questions for careertheorists and practitioners are which decomposition is mostsalient to which aspect of career development, and does a par-ticular goal orientation have equally promoting/demotingeffects on all areas of career development and career-decisionmaking. Some authors (see Payne et al., 2007) have suggestedalso that a learning goal orientation can be split into learning-perform and learning-avoid, in the same way that theperformance orientation has been considered as two inde-pendent constructs. Future research should test this finergrained analysis of goal orientation to determine if thisapproach adds to our understanding in the career area. Tem-poral relationships need to be tested also. This was not possi-ble in the current study, which collected data at one point intime. We found the hypothesized model to be the best fittingmodel of the three alternatives tested, but goal orientationmight not always be an antecedent to all career behaviors; itmight be, for example, that particular positive (or poor)career experiences will lead to changes in goal orientation,general or specific, to career development. Finally, we usedself-report scales to assess a single sample of Australian

1488 Goal orientation and career striving

© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 1480–1490

children. Future studies need to replicate these findingson different samples, and ideally include other- as wellas self-report measures to bolster the validity of theresults.

Conclusion

In summary, we found that a learning orientation was associ-ated directly, and positively, with career self-efficacy andoutcome expectations, and associated indirectly, and posi-tively, with career aspirations, career exploration and careerplanning: attitudes and behaviors that should stand young

people in good stead for achieving career goals in the longrun. We found also that a performance–avoid orientation wasassociated directly, and negatively, with career self-efficacy;that is, these adolescents also reported lower levels of confi-dence in the career domain, which reflects an orientation andbelief system that is likely to hamper their career developmentand potentially disadvantage their future achievements.These results suggest that goal orientation might be animportant variable to consider when examining career devel-opment, and might be important practically when assistingyoung people with their career progress and decision-making.

References

Anderman, L. H., & Anderman, E. M.(1999). Social predictors of change instudents’ achievement goal orientations.Contemporary Educational Psychology,24, 21–37.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations ofthought and action: A social cognitivetheory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (2006). Careerself-efficacy theory: Back to the future.Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 3–11.

Blustein, D. L. (1997). A context-rich per-spective of career exploration across thelife roles. The Career Development Quar-terly, 45, 260–274.

Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students tolearn (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Byrne, B. (2010). Structural equation model-ling with AMOS (2nd ed.). Ottawa,Canada: Routledge.

Covington, M.V. (2000). Goal theory, moti-vation, and school achievement: Anintegrative review. Annual Review of Psy-chology, 51, 171–200.

Creed, P. A., Fallon, T., & Hood, M. (2009).The relationship between career adapt-ability, person and situation variables,and career concerns in young adults.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 219–229.

Creed, P. A., & Patton, W. (2004). The devel-opment and validation of a shortform of the Career DevelopmentInventory—Australia. Australian Journalof Guidance and Counselling, 14, 125–138.

Creed, P. A., Searle, J., & Rogers, M. E.(2010). Medical specialty prestige andlifestyle preference for medical students.Social Science and Medicine, 71, 1084–1088.

Creed, P. A., Tilbury, C., Buys, N., & Craw-ford, M. (2011). Cross-lagged relation-ships between career aspirations andgoal orientation in early adolescents.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 92–99.

Davis, W., Carson, C., Ammeter, A., &Treadway, D. (2005). The interactiveeffects of goal orientation and feedbackspecificity on task performance. HumanPerformance, 18, 409–426.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processesaffecting learning. The American Psy-chologist, 41, 1040–1048.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). Asocial-cognitive approach to motivationand personality. Psychological Review, 95,256–273.

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996).Approach and avoidance achievementgoals and intrinsic motivation: A media-tional analysis. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 70, 461–475.

Elliot, A. J., Shell, M., Bouas Henry, K., &Maier, M. (2005). Achievement goals,performance contingencies, and per-formance attainment: An experimentaltest. Journal of Educational Psychology,97, 630–640.

Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002).Approach-avoidance motivation inpersonality: Approach and avoidancetemperaments and goals. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 82,804–818.

Fouad, N. A., Smith, P. L., & Enochs, L. G.(1997). Reliability and validity evidencefor the middle school self-efficacyscale. Measurement and Evaluation inCounseling and Development, 30,17–31.

Gray, M. P., & O’Brien, K. M. (2007).Advancing the assessment of women’scareer choices: The Career AspirationScale. Journal of Career Assessment, 15,317–337.

Hall, D. T. (2002). Careers in and outof organizations. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Hirschi, A. (2009). Career adaptabilitydevelopment in adolescence: Multiplepredictors and effect on sense of powerand life satisfaction. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 74, 145–155.

Jackson, C. J., Hobman, E.V., Jimmieson, N.L., & Martin, R. (2009). Comparing dif-ferent approach and avoidance models oflearning and personality in the predic-tion of work, university, and leadershipoutcomes. British Journal of Psychology,100, 283–312.

Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C. R., & Kantrowitz,T. M. (2001). Job search and employ-ment: A personality-motivational analy-sis and meta-analytic review. TheJournal of Applied Psychology, 86, 837–855.

Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). Thecontributions and prospects of goalorientation. Educational PsychologyReview, 19, 141–184.

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practiceof structural equation modelling(3rd ed.). New York, NY: TheGuilford Press.

Creed et al. 1489

© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 1480–1490

Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluck, P. E.(2000). A comparison of approaches toforming composite measures in struc-tural equation models. OrganizationalResearch Methods, 3, 186–207.

Lent, R.W. (2005). A social cognitive view ofcareer development and counseling. In S.D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Careerdevelopment and counseling: Puttingtheory and research to work (pp. 101–125). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G.(1996). Career development from a socialcognitive perspective. In D. Brown & L.Brooks (Eds.), Career choice and develop-ment (pp. 373–421). San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass Inc.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G.(2000). Contextual supports and barriersto career choice: A social cognitive analy-sis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47,36–49.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Build-ing a practically useful theory of goalsetting and task motivation: A 35-yearodyssey. The American Psychologist, 57,705–717.

Lokan, J. (1984). Manual of the career devel-opment inventory—Australian Edition.Melbourne: ACER.

Lord, R. G., Diefendorff, J. M., Schmidt, A.M., & Hall, R. J. (2010). Self-regulation atwork. Annual Review of Psychology, 61,543–568.

Maes, S., & Karoly, P. (2005). Self-regulationassessment and intervention in physicalhealth and illness: A review. AppliedPsychology: An International Review, 54,267–299.

Mau, W., & Bikos, L. H. (2000). Educationaland vocational aspirations of minorityand female students: A longitudinalstudy. Journal of Counseling andDevelopment, 78, 186–194.

Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997).Avoiding the demonstration of lack ofability: An underexplored aspect of goal

theory. Journal of Educational Psychology,89, 710–718.

Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M.,Maehr, M. L., Urdan, T., Anderman, L.H., et al. (1998). The development andvalidation of scales assessing students’achievement goal orientations. Contem-porary Educational Psychology, 23, 113–131.

O’Brien, K. M. (1996). The influence ofpsychological separation and parentalattachment on the career development ofadolescent women. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 48, 257–274.

Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien,J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examina-tion of the goal orientation nomologicalnet. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,128–150.

Rojewski, J. W. (2005). Occupational aspi-rations: Constructs, meaning and appli-cation. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent(Eds.), Career development and counsel-ling: Putting theory and research to work(pp. 131–154). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley& Sons.

Roth, P. L., Switzer, F. S., & Switzer, D. M.(1999). Missing data in multiple itemscales: A Monte Carlo analysis of missingdata techniques. Organizational ResearchMethods, 2, 211–212.

Rottinghaus, P. J., Day, S. X., & Borgen, F. H.(2005). The Career Futures Inventory: Ameasure of career-related adaptabilityand optimism. Journal of Career Assess-ment, 13, 3–24.

Savickas, M. L. (1997). Career adaptability:An integrative construct for life-span,life-space theory. The Career Develop-ment Quarterly, 45, 247–259.

Schoon, I., & Parsons, S. (2002). Teenageaspirations for future careers and occu-pational outcomes. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 60, 262–288.

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediationin experimental and nonexperimentalstudies: New procedures and recommen-

dations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.

Taylor, K. M., & Betz, N. E. (1983). Applica-tions of self-efficacy theory to theunderstanding and treatment of careerindecision. Journal of Vocational Behav-ior, 22, 63–81.

Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2003). Changes inthe perceived classroom goal structureand pattern of adaptive learning duringearly adolescence. Contemporary Educa-tional Psychology, 28, 524–551.

Utman, C. H. (1997). Performance effects ofmotivational state: A meta-analysis. Per-sonality and Social Psychology Review, 1,170–182.

Valentini, N. C., & Rudisill, M. E. (2006).Goal orientation and mastery climate: Areview of contemporary research andinsights to intervention. Estudos de Psico-logia, 23, 159–172.

Van Hooft, E. A. J., & Noordzij, G. (2009).The effects of goal orientation on jobsearch and reemployment: A field experi-ment among unemployed job seekers.The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,1581–1590.

VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development andvalidation of a work domain goal orien-tation instrument. Educational andPsychological Measurement, 57, 995–1015.

VandeWalle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., &Slocum, J. W. (1999). The influenceof goal orientation and self-regulationtactics on sales performance: A longitu-dinal field test. The Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 84, 249–259.

Yeo, G. B., Sorbello, T., Koy, A., & Smillie, L.D. (2008). Goal orientation profiles andtask performance growth. Motivationand Emotion, 32, 296–309.

Zikic, J., & Klehe, U. (2006). Job loss as ablessing in disguise: The role of careerexploration and career planning in pre-dicting reemployment quality. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 69, 391–409.

1490 Goal orientation and career striving

© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 1480–1490