Australian Journal of Psychology

ISSN: 0004-9530 (Print) 1742-9536 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raup20

Emotional self‐efficacy, graduate employability,

and career satisfaction: Testing the associations

Lorraine Dacre pool & Pamela Qualter

To cite this article: Lorraine Dacre pool & Pamela Qualter (2013) Emotional self‐efficacy,
graduate employability, and career satisfaction: Testing the associations, Australian Journal of
Psychology, 65:4, 214-223, DOI: 10.1111/ajpy.12023

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12023

Published online: 20 Nov 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2660

View related articles

Citing articles: 32 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=raup20
bs_bs_banner

Australian Journal of Psychology 2013; 65: 214–223

doi: 10.1111/ajpy.12023

Emotional self-efficacy, graduate employability, and career

satisfaction: Testing the associations

Lorraine Dacre Pool and Pamela Qualter

University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK

Abstract

Graduate employability has been the subject of little empirical research. There are a number of difficulties in defining and measuring
graduate employability, which means that there is a paucity of research that looks at its predictors and outcomes. Previous work has
proposed that emotional competence improves graduate employability, and this study further investigates this idea by examining the
association between emotional self-efficacy and employability. Also investigated is the association between employability and career
satisfaction. Working graduates (N = 306) completed measures of emotional self-efficacy, self-perceived employability, and career
satisfaction, and the data were analysed using structural equation modelling. We found emotional self-efficacy to be an important
predictor of graduate employability. Additionally, we found that graduate employability mediates the relationship between emotional
self-efficacy and career satisfaction. Some recommendations, in light of these findings, are discussed.

Key words: career satisfaction, emotional competence, emotional self-efficacy, graduate employability, trait emotional intelligence

Graduate employability core of most university courses’ (Bowden, Hart, King,

Trigwell, & Watts, 2000, p. 1).
Graduate employability has been discussed for some time,
Measuring graduate employability is particularly problem-
but there have been difficulties with its definition and con-
atic with the full-time employment rates of graduates often
ceptual clarity (e.g., Pegg, Waldock, Hendy-Isaac, & Lawton,
used as easily measurable proxies for graduate employability
2012; Sewell & Dacre Pool, 2010). The literature suggests
(Bridgstock, 2009). However, measuring employability in
that graduate employability is more than just getting a job or
this way is problematic, not least because the current state of
accumulating skills, and should not be confused with
the labour market will always impact on levels of graduate
employment rates or seen as a measure of institutional
employment. Additionally, it is employers who ultimately
success or otherwise (Harvey, 2003, 2005).
convert graduate employability into employment, and there
One of the more widely accepted definitions (Yorke, 2006)
are a number of factors that mediate the employment
suggests that it is, ‘[a] set of achievements—skills, under-
process, including the type of higher education institution
standings and personal attributes—that makes graduates
attended, mode and subject of study, age, ethnicity, gender,
more likely to gain employment and be successful in their
and social class (Harvey, 2001). As such, using employment
chosen occupations, which benefits themselves, the work-
rates as an ‘objective’ measure of graduate employability
force, the community and the economy’ (p. 8). The concept
would appear to be deeply flawed. It could be that, as with
of graduate employability shares much with the concept
many achievements valued by society, graduate employabil-
of graduate attributes, defined as ‘the qualities, skills and
ity is something that resists objective measurement (Yorke &
understandings a university community agrees its students
Knight, 2006). As such, self-evaluation is likely to be the
should develop during their time with the institution. These
most useful way of approaching this task.
attributes include, but go beyond, the disciplinary expertise
Recent years have seen the emergence of models of gradu-
or technical knowledge that has traditionally formed the
ate employability development (e.g., Dacre Pool & Sewell,
2007; Knight & Yorke, 2004), and some measures of self-
perceived employability are now available (e.g., Berntson &
Correspondence: Lorraine Dacre Pool, Academic Development & Marklund, 2007; Rothwell & Arnold, 2007). These help
Employability, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lanca-
inform what these ‘skills, understandings and personal attrib-
shire, PR1 2HE, UK. Email: ldacre-pool@uclan.ac.uk
Received 4 December 2012. Accepted for publication 21 May utes’ might be, but there is still limited empirical research
2013. in this area, particularly in relation to the self-perceived
© 2013 The Australian Psychological Society employability of graduates.

Much of the discussion surrounding graduate employabil-
ity focuses on the skills and competencies that employers
consider desirable in their graduate recruits, sometimes
referred to as ‘generic’ or ‘transferable’ employability skills
(Bridgstock, 2009). These include self-management, team-
working, communication, and the ability to work under
pressure (e.g., Lowden, Hall, Elliot, & Lewin, 2011).
Researchers have highlighted the need for further empirical
investigation of these skills and competencies as possible
predictors of employability (Wittekind, Raeder, & Grote,
2010). Other researchers (Dacre Pool & Sewell, 2007; Jaeger,
2003; Liptak, 2005; Repetto Talavera & Pérez-González,
2007; Vandervoort, 2006) have argued that emotional com-
petence should also be studied as this may have a direct or
indirect impact (via the generic skills mentioned above) on
graduate employability.
Emotional intelligence (EI)
The construct of EI provides a scientific framework for
the study of emotional competence (Mikolajczak, Petrides,
Coumans, & Luminet, 2009). It has been conceptualised as
an emotion-related cognitive ability (Mayer & Salovey,
1997; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002) comprising a set of
four emotion-related skills that include the ability to per-
ceive, use, understand, and manage emotion (the four-
branch model). EI has also been defined as a constellation of
emotional self-perceptions located at the lower levels of
personality hierarchies (Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007).
These two distinct perspectives are usually referred to as
‘ability EI’ and ‘trait EI’, respectively, with meta-analytical
studies finding a weak correlation between the two (Van
Rooy, Viswesvaran, & Pluta, 2005). Different measurement
methods are utilised dependent upon the EI perspective
taken: ability EI uses performance-based measures, and trait
EI utilises self-report methodology. There have been a
number of studies that have examined work-related out-
comes in relation to a person’s EI ability. These outcomes are
likely to impact on graduate employability, and include
enhanced work performance (O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack,
Hawver, & Story, 2010), negotiation skills (Mueller
& Curhan, 2006), effective leadership (Kerr, Garvin, Heaton,
& Boyle, 2006), successful team-working (Vitello-Cicciu,
2001), and greater revenue generation and better customer
retention in sales professionals (Kidwell, Hardesty, Murtha,
& Sheng, 2011). Furthermore, there is now evidence directly
linking emotional competence in undergraduate students
with interview success, another important aspect of employ-
ability (Nelis et al., 2011).
However, whether or not people feel confident about, or
motivated to use, their emotional knowledge and skills has
received little empirical investigation.
© 2013 The Australian Psychological Society
Emotions, employability, and career satisfaction 215
Emotional self-efficacy
One research area that helps address this issue is that of
emotional self—efficacy (ESE). ESE has been suggested as
an appropriate alternative label for trait EI (Petrides &
Furnham, 2001; Petrides, Pérez-González, & Furnham,
2007). However, Kirk, Schutte, and Hine (2008, Kirk,
Schutte, and Hine 2011) argue that although ESE may be an
aspect of trait EI, the two are not identical. In support of this
argument, recent studies have found only small to medium
correlations between ESE subscales and trait EI subscales,
as measured by the Trait Emotional Intelligence Ques-
tionnaire (Petrides & Furnham, 2006) of between 0.15
and 0.62 (Dacre Pool & Qualter, 2012b). ESE is solely con-
cerned with confidence in one’s emotional competence
as operationalised by the four-branch ability model of EI
(Mayer & Salovey, 1997), whereas trait EI encompasses
other aspects of self-perception and dispositions (Kirk et al.,
2008). The concept of self-efficacy is most often associated
with the work of Bandura (1997), with Mayer, Caruso, and
Salovey (1999) furthering this work by suggesting that
people often act on what they believe about their abilities as
opposed to their actual abilities, highlighting the importance
of measuring ESE. Literature that looks at how people differ
in their capability and skills does not fully explain why these
individual differences may or may not be demonstrated in
actual levels of performance. As such, it is possible that
self-efficacy is even more important than actual task-related
abilities and skills in explaining these individual differences
in performance (Gundlach, Martinko, & Douglas, 2003).
In the case of EI, a person may have the ability to read
emotions well in other people or to manage their own emo-
tions, but they may decide not to use either of these abilities,
possibly because they are not motivated to do so or because
they lack self-efficacy in this domain (Kirk et al., 2008;
Qualter, Barlow, & Stylianou, 2011). People who believe
that they have some control over their emotional compe-
tence are more successful in regulating their emotions than
those who believe that this is something they cannot con-
trol effectively (Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Gerbino, &
Pastorelli, 2003). Research in this new field of interest is
limited, but recent work has found that ESE helps school
children and university students manage the negative effects
of anxiety in relation to mathematics testing (Galla & Wood,
2012; Tariq, Qualter, Roberts, Appleby, & Barnes, 2013), and
predicts academic performance among boys (Qualter,
Gardner, Pope, Hutchinson, & Whiteley, 2012).
It could be that ESE is also an important factor in rela-
tion to work-related outcomes, and in particular graduate
employability, but as yet this has not been investigated.
Confirming the association between ESE and graduate
employability is important because it would indicate that
ESE is a potential contributor to employability, which itself
216 L. Dacre Pool and P. Qualter

predicts better health and well-being (Berntson & Marklund,
2007). There is also evidence to suggest that ESE and EI can be
improved through teaching interventions for undergraduate
students (Dacre Pool & Qualter, 2012a), and is therefore
something that universities can help students to develop.
Career satisfaction
Career satisfaction is not to be confused with job satisfaction,
which is purely concerned with the current role; instead, it
relates to an individual’s satisfaction with the accumulation
of their career-related experiences (Rothwell & Arnold,
2007). For graduates, having invested a good deal of time,
hard work, and for many, expense in gaining their qualifi-
cations, the attainment of a satisfying career is likely to be
of great importance to them (e.g., Purcell, Elias, Davies, &
Wilton, 2005). Research indicates that employability and
career satisfaction are related concepts (De Vos & Soens,
2008; Rothwell & Arnold, 2007). However, this previous
research has been carried out with broad population samples
and may not generalise to working graduates.
lation of assets that improve a person’s chances of career
satisfaction. This would appear to be a very similar construct
to employability: included within this definition are personal
attributes, social contacts, and relationships. It is possible
that ESE is one of these personal attributes that helps in the
development and maintenance of social contacts and rela-
tionships, thereby enhancing employability. People who
consider themselves better able to perceive, use, understand,
and manage emotion should use these skills to form better
interpersonal relationships with others in the workplace. As
such, they are likely to enjoy wider, more supportive net-
works, and feel confident in their ability to gain and retain
suitable employment that will bring them career satisfaction.
The current study also explores the possible mediating role
of employability in relation to ESE and career satisfaction.
The following hypotheses are formulated:
Hypothesis 1: There will be a positive correlation between
ESE and self-perceived employability.
Hypothesis 2: There will be a positive correlation between
self-perceived employability and career satisfaction.

Associations among the three concepts Hypothesis 3: There will be a positive correlation between
ESE and career satisfaction.
So, by which mechanisms might ESE, graduate employabil-
ity, and career satisfaction be associated? It would make Hypothesis 4: Self-perceived employability will mediate
sense that people who are confident in their ability to the effects of ESE on career satisfaction.
manage their emotions effectively also perform these behav-
iours, and as such enjoy better interpersonal relationships
than those who are not; ESE is likely to help with employ- METHOD
ability issues, such as developing and maintaining networks,
and being ‘kept in the know’ concerning possible opportu- Participants and procedure
nities. The current research aims to investigate whether ESE
An email was sent to approximately 4,000 graduates (gradu-
predicts self-perceived graduate employability.
ated 2006, 2007, and 2008) who are alumni of a university
It may be that having well-developed, job-specific and
in the north-west of England, requesting their participation
generic skills—both aspects of employability—gives gradu-
in a research study. The participants graduated from a wide
ates confidence in their ability to gain alternative employ-
range of disciplines, including business studies, electronic
ment, either within their current organisation or elsewhere
engineering, history, and human resource management.
if necessary. As such, they are more likely to take a proactive
Further email reminders were sent 7 days and 14 days after
approach where career management is concerned, making
the initial email invite. Respondents completed the ques-
positive changes before they become dissatisfied with their
tionnaire online. Three hundred six working graduates
careers. Therefore, this research aims to investigate the
(M = 140, F = 164, not reported = 2; mean age = 28 years,
relationship between graduate employability and career
standard deviation = 7.0) participated in the study. No
satisfaction.
incentives to take part in this study were provided.
A further consideration is whether or not there is a direct
relationship between ESE and career satisfaction. Confi-
Measures
dence in one’s emotional competence could create a more
general positive approach to life and work, which then leads
Emotional self-efficacy (ESE)
to a more favourable assessment of the current career
situation. The current research will also investigate this The Emotional Self-Efficacy Scale (ESES) developed by Kirk
possibility. et al. (2008) originally comprised 32 items, with eight items
Finally, it could be that employability plays a mediating representing each of the four branches of the Mayer and
role between ESE and career satisfaction. Arnold (2011) Salovey (1997) model. Participants are required to rate their
discusses the issue of career capital, defined as the accumu- confidence in respect of each item by selecting a number on
© 2013 The Australian Psychological Society

a 5-point scale, with ‘1’ indicating ‘not at all confident’ and ‘5’
indicating ‘very confident’. The revised scoring system (Dacre
Pool & Qualter, 2012b) was used in this study. Only 27 items
are scored; they make up four subscales: (1) using and man-
aging own emotions; example item ‘Calm down when feeling
angry’; (2) identifying and understanding own emotions;
example item ‘Correctly identify your own positive emotions’; (3)
dealing with emotions in others; example item ‘Realise what
causes another person to feel a positive emotion’; and (4) perceiv-
ing emotion through facial expressions and body language;
example item ‘Notice the emotion another person’s body language
is portraying’. Cronbach’s alpha for the four subscales ranged
from 0.79 to 0.89.
Employability
A limited number of employability measures have been
published in the literature. The three used in this research
tap into the different elements of self-perceived employabil-
ity and are appropriate for use with a graduate sample;
there are 19 items in total. The Self-perceived Employability
Scale (Rothwell & Arnold, 2007) comprises 11 items that
make up two subscales (internal employability (four items)
and external employability (seven items)). Participants are
required to state their agreement with the items by select-
ing a number on a 5-point scale, with ‘1’ indicating strong
disagreement and ‘5’ indicating strong agreement. Examples of
items include the following: ‘My personal networks in this
organisation help me in my career’ (internal employability
item) and ‘I could easily get a similar job to mine in almost
any organisation’ (external employability item). Rothwell
and Arnold (2007) report good internal consistency for the
measure (Cronbach’s alpha for internal employabil-
ity = 0.72, external employability 0.79, and the total scale
0.83). The Measure of Perceived Employability (Berntson &
Marklund, 2007) comprises five items. Participants are
required to state their agreement with the items by select-
ing a number on a 5-point scale, with ‘1’ indicating strong
disagreement and ‘5’ indicating strong agreement. Examples of
items include the following: ‘My competence is sought-after
in the labour market’ and ‘I know of other organisations/
companies where I could get work’. Cronbach’s alpha for
the total scale is good α = 0.88 (Berntson & Marklund,
2007). The Perceived Employability Scale (De Vos & Soens,
2008) comprises three items: ‘I believe I could easily obtain
a comparable job with another employer’, ‘I believe I could
easily obtain another job that is in line with my level of
education and experience’ and ‘I believe I could easily
obtain another job that would give me a high level of sat-
isfaction’. Participants are required to state their agreement
with the items by selecting a number on a 5-point scale,
with ‘1’ indicating strong disagreement and ‘5’ indicating
strong agreement. De Vos and Soens (2008) report good
© 2013 The Australian Psychological Society
Emotions, employability, and career satisfaction 217
internal consistency for the measure, with Cronbach’s
alpha for the total scale = 0.91.
Career satisfaction
The Career Satisfaction Scale (De Vos & Soens, 2008, adapted
from Martins, Eddleston, & Veiga, 2002), comprises three
items that measure career satisfaction: ‘I am satisfied with
my career status’, ‘I am satisfied with my current job’ and ‘I
feel my career progress has been satisfactory’. Participants
are required to state their agreement with the items by
selecting a number on a 5-point scale, with ‘1’ indicating
strong disagreement and ‘5’ indicating strong agreement. De Vos
and Soens (2008) report good internal consistency for
the measure, with Cronbach’s alpha for the total scale
n(289) = 0.87.
Analysis plan
This study uses structural equation modelling (SEM) tech-
niques to investigate the relationships among ESE, employ-
ability, and career satisfaction. SEM is different to path
analysis because it hypothesises that the variables under
investigation may not be observable, and are thus better
modelled as latent variables. Models that involve only
observed variables (i.e., total scores) in regression or path
models assume that measured variables are valid and reli-
able, but this is unrealistic in studies, like ours, where all
measurements take place through self-report question-
naires. Using SEM with latent variables of our constructs
means that we can include measurement error components
of unknown size that are likely to vary for the different
instruments we used. Because not accounting for mea-
surement error when it is present is a serious problem
(Schumacker & Lomax, 2004), our SEM model includes
latent variables with measurement error estimated in AMOS
17 (Arbuckle, 2008) using maximum likelihood estimation.
SEM requires relatively large sample sizes. Studies have
shown that if sample size is sufficiently large, maximum
likelihood (ML) parameter estimates are quite robust against
violations of assumptions of multivariate normality and con-
tinuity of the data (West, Finch, & Curran, 1995). Some have
suggested, as a rough guideline, a 5:1 ratio of sample size to
number of parameters estimated in order to trust ML param-
eter estimates (Bentler & Chou, 1987). For models with
highly reliable factors, quite satisfactory solutions can be
obtained with relatively small samples, (e.g., Gagné &
Hancock, 2006; Marsh, Hau, Balla, & Grayson, 1998); models
with less reliable factors might require larger samples
(Jackson, 2003).
Within our model, the four subscales of the ESES formed
a latent variable of ESE. The latent variable of employability
was formed from the 19 employability indicator variables
that are items on the three employability scales. The three
218 L. Dacre Pool and P. Qualter

items from the De Vos career satisfaction measure formed a
latent variable of career satisfaction. We posited that ESE
would exert some direct influence on employability but also
on career satisfaction, employability would influence career
satisfaction, and that ESE would exert some indirect influ-
ence on career satisfaction through employability.
The structural equation model was performed in AMOS
17 (Arbuckle, 2008). All analyses were conducted using full
information maximum likelihood estimation with robust
standard errors (Little & Rubin, 1987). The degree of model
fit was used to make interpretations about the overall model,
with parameter information being used to determine the
associations between the variables; after initial testing, if the
degree of model fit and parameter information suggested
modification to the model with the removal of any given
path, we removed that path and re-ran the model. We
adopt Kline’s (2011) recommendation and report several
goodness-of-fit (GOF) statistics: the comparative fit index
(CFI), normed fit index (NFI), and the root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) (Browne & Cudeck,
1992). Hu and Bentler’s (1999) proposals for thresholds for
approximate model fit from these GOF statistics are the most
widely used in the SEM literature, but there is debate regard-
ing these cut-off criteria; computer simulations cast doubt on
the generality of these thresholds (see Kline, 2011, for dis-
cussion). From their computer simulations, Marsh, Hau, and
Wen (2004) highlighted some important problems in using
the proposed cut-off criteria in model fit assessment and
suggested rules of thumb to use when testing hypotheses.
Marsh et al. state that RMSEA would be expected to be less
than 0.05 to be viewed as having a good fit, or between 0.05
and 0.08 for a reasonable fit to the data. According to Marsh
et al., the CFI should exceed 0.90, as should NFI. The chi-
square index, which tests the null hypothesis of perfect fit to
the data, should be as small as possible. According to the
computer simulation studies, we would not necessarily
expect all GOF statistics to be above these thresholds. We
report unstandardised regression coefficients (B) and corre-
lations (r, obtained as standardised regression coefficients).
The alpha level is set to 0.05 throughout.
RESULTS
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics, the inter-
correlations between subscale scores, and reliability coef-
ficients (Cronbach’s alpha) for the study variables. The
significant correlations between the variables support the
development of the proposed model. The baseline SEM
model included direct paths from (1) the latent variable ESE
to the latent variable employability and (2) from ESE to the
latent variable career satisfaction. The model also included a
path from employability to career satisfaction. This model
was a reasonable fit to the data (χ2 (296, N = 306) = 734.52,
p < .001, NFI = 0.80, CFI = 0.87, RMSEA = 0.07 (CI95 =
0.063, 0.076)). The squared multiple correlations provided
within AMOS show that the latent variables of employability
and career satisfaction were predicted reasonably accurately
by other variables in the model (employability = 0.483,
career satisfaction = 0.571). This model included a nonsig-
nificant path from ESE to career satisfaction, suggesting that
ESE did not directly affect career satisfaction; instead, ESE
indirectly affected career satisfaction via employability. This
path was subsequently removed from the model, which
improved model fit slightly (χ2 (297, N = 306) = 655.06,
p < .001, NFI = 0.89, CFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.06 (CI95 =
0.053, 0.066)). Based on the rules of thumb for determining
acceptable levels of GOF detailed in Marsh et al. (2004), the
final model fit the data reasonably well. Figure 1 displays
the final model, with all significant pathways included.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics, intercorrelations, and reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) for the study variables
Standard
M deviation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. ESES (1) 36.44 7.20 0.92
2. ESES (2) 23.61 4.01 0.69** 0.90
3. ESES (3) 30.02 5.09 0.73** 0.74** 0.89
4. ESES (4) 11.35 2.51 0.67** 0.70** 0.70** 0.86
5. Employability (1) 14.83 2.73 0.35** 0.16** 0.28** 0.22** 0.67
6. Employability (2) 24.86 4.05 0.34** 0.22** 0.31** 0.25** 0.54** 0.74
7. Employability (3) 17.10 3.52 0.42** 0.22** 0.32** 0.26** 0.62** 0.69** 0.78
8. Employability (4) 9.78 2.49 0.40** 0.27** 0.32** 0.25** 0.50** 0.73** 0.68** 0.82
9. Career Satisfaction 10.28 3.10 0.30** 0.18** 0.20** 0.16** 0.50** 0.39** 0.51** 0.45** .86
Note. Alphas are on the diagonal. Table 1 does not include item information for ESES, employability and career satisfaction; these items form the
indicator variables of the latent constructs in the SEM. Should the reader want information about correlations between items of the latent constructs,
these details are available from the authors upon request. ESES (1) = using and managing own emotions; ESES (2) = identifying and understanding
own emotions; ESES (3) = dealing with emotions in others; ESES (4) = perceiving emotion through facial expressions and body language; Employ-
ability (1) = Rothwell and Arnold (internal employability); Employability (2) = Rothwell and Arnold (external employability); Employability
(3) = Berntson and Marklund; Employability (4) = De Vos and Soens; Career satisfaction = De Vos and Soens.
**p < .01.

© 2013 The Australian Psychological Society

 Emotions, employability, and career satisfaction 219

Emp. 1 ε1

.489
Emp. 2 ε2
.515
Emp. 3 ε3
.448

Emp. 4 ε4
.379
δ1 δ2 δ3 δ4
Emp. 5 ε5
.433

ESES2 ESES3 ESES4 Emp. 6 ε6

E
ESES1
.492
.875 .805 ζ1
.844
.835 .541 Emp. 7 ε7

Emotional .429 .543 Emp. 8 ε8

Employability
Self-Efficacy
.518
Emp. 9 ε9
.662

Emp. 10 ε10
.586

.616
Emp. 11 ε11

.620 Emp. 12 ε12

.623

Emp. 13 ε13
.561

Emp. 14 ε14
.638
ζ2
Emp. 15 ε15
.710

Career Emp. 16 ε16

.689
Satisfaction
Emp. 17 ε17
.814

.904 .756 .871

Emp. 18 ε18
.714
CS1 CS2 CS3
Emp. 19 ε19

ε22 ε21 ε20

Figure 1 Final structural equation model linking emotional self-efficacy and employability variables to career satisfaction and success.
Note. ESES1 = using and managing own emotions; ESES2 = identifying and understanding own emotions; ESES3 = dealing with emotions in
others; ESES4 = perceiving emotion through facial expressions and body language; Emp. 1–Emp. 11 = Self-perceived Employability Scale
(Rothwell & Arnold, 2007); Emp. 12–Emp. 16 = Measure of Perceived Employability (Berntson & Marklund, 2007); Emp. 17–Emp. 19 = Perceived
Employability Scale (De Vos & Soens, 2008); CS1–CS3 = Career Satisfaction Scale (De Vos & Soens, 2008).

The removal of the path from ESE to career satisfaction did
not change the squared multiple correlations, suggesting
that career satisfaction was influenced only by employability
and not by ESE.
Using latent variables in the current study meant that
measurement error was present in our model. This is impor-
tant because all of our measurements took place through
© 2013 The Australian Psychological Society
self-report. Common method variance (CMV) may still be a
concern however, so a post hoc Harman one-factor analysis
(Harman, 1967) was carried out. Should the results reveal a
single factor, or one general factor that accounts for the
majority of covariance among the variables, this could
suggest that CMV is a cause for concern. For our data, the
test revealed 10 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.
220 L. Dacre Pool and P. Qualter
These factors accounted for 67% of the variance, and the
first factor accounted for 32%. This does not allow a defini-
tive conclusion that CMV had no effect (Chang, Van
Witteloostuijn & Eden, 2010), but suggests that its effects are
limited in relation to these data.
DISCUSSION
Findings from the current study provide support for Hypoth-
esis 1 showing that ESE is significantly related to employ-
ability; it appears that working graduates who have higher
ESE also perceive themselves as highly employable. This
implies that beliefs concerning emotional competence influ-
ence self-perceived employability; people who are more con-
fident in their abilities to perceive, use, understand, and
manage emotion also consider themselves more employable.
Employability is concerned with having certain skills and
attributes that make a person more likely to choose, secure,
and retain employment, such as having good personal net-
works, being aware of opportunities, and feeling respected
within an organisation. Somebody who is confident in his/
her emotional competence, and sees himself/herself as an
effective communicator with his/her colleagues, managers,
and customers, is more likely to be able to develop and
maintain personal networks and gain the respect of others.
The findings regarding the associations among ESE, gradu-
ate employability, and career satisfaction are also of impor-
tance. In line with Rothwell and Arnold (2007), De Vos and
Soens (2008), and supporting Hypothesis 2, we found a sig-
nificant relationship between employability and career sat-
isfaction, but we fill a gap in the research by showing this
association within a graduate sample. Further, in support of
Hypothesis 4, we found that ESE did not have a direct effect
on career satisfaction, but operated indirectly via employ-
ability. Thus, having confidence in your emotional compe-
tence does not in itself bring you career satisfaction; instead,
it most likely results in better communication and social
interaction in the workplace, increasing feelings of perceived
employability, which leads to a more satisfying career. It is
possible that over time, there is a bidirectional effect with
increasing career satisfaction leading to increases in per-
ceived employability. Future prospective work will enable
such an investigation.
The current findings must be seen within the context of
the self-efficacy and emotional skills distinction (Dacre Pool
& Qualter, 2012b). It may not be sufficient to possess the
ability to accurately recognise and manage emotions such as
anger or confusion in a colleague or customer; confidence in
these abilities is also necessary for greater emotional compe-
tence in the workplace. This not only means that future
research will want to establish the links between both
emotional abilities and ESE in predicting behaviour that
enhances employability, but also that any interventions
designed to increase graduate employability should look to
increase both skills and confidence.
Such ideas are important within models of graduate
employability development, which propose that under-
graduate students should be given the opportunity to
develop their emotional skill while within higher education
(Dacre Pool & Sewell, 2007). It seems students should also
be given the opportunity to gain confidence in their emo-
tional competence. Both the teaching of emotional skill and
the increasing of ESE can be achieved through teaching and
learning schemes that provide students with knowledge of
emotional functioning and emotion management strategies
(Dacre Pool & Qualter, 2012a). Giving students the oppor-
tunity to practice possible emotion management strategies
and then reflect on these mastery experiences within a safe
and supportive environment will increase their levels of
self-efficacy in relation to emotional competence (Bandura,
1995). Based on these results, including such opportunities
for students to increase their levels of ESE as part of their
learning experiences should also result in an enhancement
of their employability and general career satisfaction.
There are some limitations to this study that should be
noted, including the self-selecting sample, which could
create bias. Additionally, the design is cross-sectional, and it
is not possible to be certain about the direction of causality in
the data. Further studies should examine the relationships
longitudinally. Also, the study utilised measurement tools
that were all self-report, and as such is reliant on partici-
pants’ self-perceptions of their ESE and employability. This
could contribute to common method bias (see Spector, 2006,
for a detailed discussion), although the post hoc analysis
carried out does not indicate that CMV was a problem in
relation to these data. Future studies may be able to utilise
observational methodology to study what it is that people
higher in EI and/or ESE actually do in the workplace. Such
a design would mean that possible mechanisms by which
these concepts influence behaviour can be examined. For
example, in relation to managing emotion, do high EIs/high
ESEs actively manage conflict or are they are able to spot
potential conflict before it happens and withdraw from the
situation? While a strength of this study is the inclusion of
graduates from many different disciplines, the small number
from each meant that it was not possible to explore the
pattern of effects across the different disciplines. As earlier
work (Sánchez-Ruiz, Pérez-González, & Petrides, 2010)
found differences in trait EI between students of different
disciplines, it is possible that ESE and graduate employability
may vary across domains. Future studies may want to
explore this. It might also be useful to explore gender in
future studies.
Our findings show that emotional self-efficacy is an impor-
tant aspect of graduate employability. Previous work also
© 2013 The Australian Psychological Society

shows that it is possible to design and deliver appropriate
interventions that increase levels of EI and ESE in under-
graduate students (Dacre Pool & Qualter, 2012a). Together,
these empirical findings provide some support for the idea
of including appropriate ‘emotional’ learning experiences
within the higher education curricula. However, if such
learning is to be included, the teaching needs to be empiri-
cally based and its potential impact evaluated (e.g., Qualter,
Gardner, & Whiteley, 2007; Zeidner, Roberts, & Matthews,
2002).
In conclusion, we found that emotional self-efficacy is
important for graduate employability and career satisfaction.
This study adds to the literature on graduate employability
by providing some empirical evidence of predictors and out-
comes, which support the inclusion within educational cur-
ricula of activities to develop and improve emotional
competence. In addition to the more general life benefits
that improved emotional competence brings, it should also
enhance graduate employability; ensuring graduates have a
greater chance of securing and retaining occupations in
which they can experience satisfaction and success.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We wish to thank F. Mathieson and J. Lee for their help with
data collection.
REFERENCES
Arbuckle, J. L. (2008). AMOS 17 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS.
Arnold, J. (2011). Career concepts in the 21st century. The Psycholo-
gist, 24(2), 106–109.
Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in
changing societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing
societies (pp. 1–45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
W. H. Freeman and Company.
Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M., &
Pastorelli, C. (2003). Role of affective self-regulatory efficacy in
diverse spheres of psychosocial functioning. Child Development,
74(3), 769–782. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00567
Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural
equation modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16, 78–117.
Berntson, E., & Marklund, S. (2007). The relationship between
perceived employability and subsequent health. Work & Stress,
21(3), 279–292. doi:10.1080/02678370701659215
Bowden, J., Hart, G., King, B., Trigwell, K., & Watts, O. (2000).
Generic capabilities of ATN University graduates. Canberra: Australian
Government Department of Education, Training and Youth
Affairs.
Bridgstock, R. (2009). The graduate attributes we’ve overlooked:
Enhancing graduate employability through career management
skills. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(1), 31–44.
doi:10.1080/07294360802444347
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of
assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21, 230–258.
doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005
© 2013 The Australian Psychological Society
Emotions, employability, and career satisfaction 221
Chang, S.-J., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the
editors: Common method variance in international business
research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 178–184.
doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.88
Dacre Pool, L., & Qualter, P. (2012a). Improving emotional intelli-
gence and emotional self-efficacy through a teaching interven-
tion for university students. Learning and Individual Differences, 22,
306–312. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.01.010
Dacre Pool, L., & Qualter, P. (2012b). The dimensional structure of
the Emotional Self-efficacy Scale (ESES). Australian Journal of
Psychology, 64, 147–154. doi:10.1111/j.1742-9536.2011.00039.x
Dacre Pool, L., & Sewell, P. (2007). The key to employability: Devel-
oping a practical model of graduate employability. Education
and Training, 49(4), 277–289. doi:10.1108/0040091071075
4435
De Vos, A., & Soens, N. (2008). Protean attitude and career success:
The mediating role of self-management. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 73, 449–456. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.08.007
Gagné, P. E., & Hancock, G. R. (2006). Measurement model quality,
sample size, and solution propriety in confirmatory factor
models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41, 65–83.
Galla, B. M., & Wood, J. J. (2012). Emotional self-efficacy moderates
anxiety-related impairments in math performance in elementary
school-age youth. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 118–
122. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.09.012
Gundlach, M. J., Martinko, M. J., & Douglas, S. C. (2003). Emo-
tional intelligence, causal reasoning and the self-efficacy
development process. The International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 11(3), 229–246.
Harman, H. H. (1967). Modern factor analysis (2nd ed., revised).
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Harvey, L. (2001). Defining and measuring employability. Quality in
Higher Education, 7(2), 97–109. doi:10.1080/13538320120059990
Harvey, L. (2003). On employability. The Higher Educa-
tion Academy. Retrieved April 30, 2013, from http://
www.qualityresearchinternational.com/esecttools/esectpubs/
harveyonemp.pdf
Harvey, L. (2005). Embedding and integrating employability. New
Directions for Institutional Research, 128, 13–28. doi:10.1002/ir.160
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional versus new alterna-
tives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705
519909540118
Jackson, D. L. (2003). Revisiting sample size and number of param-
eter estimates: Some support for the N:q hypothesis. Structural
Equation Modeling, 10, 128–141.
Jaeger, A. J. (2003). Job competencies and the curriculum: An
inquiry into emotional intelligence in graduate professional edu-
cation. Research in Higher Education, 44(6), 615–639. doi:10.1023/
A:1026119724265.
Kerr, R., Garvin, J., Heaton, N., & Boyle, E. (2006). Emotional
intelligence and leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 27(4), 265–279. doi:10.1108/01437730610
666028
Kidwell, B., Hardesty, D. M., Murtha, B., & Sheng, S. (2011). Emo-
tional intelligence in marketing exchanges. Journal of Marketing,
75, 78–95. doi:10.1509/jmkg.75.1.78
Kirk, B. A., Schutte, N. S., & Hine, D. W. (2008). Development
and preliminary validation of an emotional self-efficacy scale.
Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 432–436. doi:10.1016/
j.paid.2008.06.010
Kirk, B. A., Schutte, N. S., & Hine, D. W. (2011). The effect of an
expressive writing intervention for employees on emotional self-
efficacy, emotional intelligence, affect, and workplace incivility.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(1), 179–195. doi:10.1111/
j.1559-1816.2010.00708.x
222 L. Dacre Pool and P. Qualter
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling (3rd ed.). London: The Guildford Press.
Knight, P., & Yorke, M. (2004). Learning, curriculum and employability
in higher education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Liptak, J. J. (2005). Using emotional intelligence to help college
students succeed in the workplace. Journal of Employ-
ment Counseling, 42, 171–178. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1920.2005.
tb01088.x
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing
data. New York: John Wiley.
Lowden, K., Hall, S., Elliot, D., & Lewin, J. (2011). Employers’ per-
ceptions of the employability skills of new graduates. London: Edge
Foundation.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., Balla, J. R., & Grayson, D. (1998). Is more
ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirma-
tory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 181–220.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. L. (2004). In search of golden
rules: Comment on hypothesis testing approaches to setting
cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralising Hu &
Bentler (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320–341.
doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
Martins, L. L., Eddleston, K. A., & Veiga, J. F. (2002). Moderators of
the relationship between work-family conflict and career satis-
faction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 399–409.
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelli-
gence meets traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence,
27, 267–298. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(99)00016-1
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence?
In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emo-
tional intelligence: Implications for educators (pp. 3–31). New York:
Basic Books.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-
Caruso emotional intelligence test—MSCEIT. User’s manual. Toronto:
Multi-Health Systems.
Mikolajczak, M., Petrides, K. V., Coumans, N., & Luminet, O.
(2009). The moderating effect of trait emotional intelligence on
mood deterioration following laboratory-induced stress. Interna-
tional Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 9(3), 455–477.
Mueller, J., & Curhan, J. (2006). Emotional intelligence and coun-
terpart mood induction in a negotiation. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 17, 110–128.
Nelis, D., Kotsou, I., Quoidbach, J., Hansenne, M., Weyens, F.,
Dupuis, P., & Mikolajczak, M. (2011). Increasing emotional com-
petence improves psychological and physical well-being,
social relationships and employability. Emotion, 11(2), 354–366.
doi:10.1037/a0021554.
O’Boyle, E. H. Jr, Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., &
Story, P. A. (2010). The relation between emotional intelligence
and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 32(5), 788–818. doi:10.1002/job.714
Pegg, A., Waldock, J., Hendy-Isaac, S., & Lawton, R. (2012). Peda-
gogy for employability. York: The Higher Education Academy.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence:
Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait
taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425–448.
doi:10.1002/per.416
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2006). The role of trait emotional
intelligence in a gender-specific model of organizational
variables. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 552–569.
doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00019.x
Petrides, K. V., Pérez-González, J. C., & Furnham, A. (2007). On the
criterion and incremental validity of trait emotional intelligence.
Cognition and Emotion, 21(1), 26–55. doi:10.1080/0269993060
1038912
Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location
of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British
Journal of Psychology, 98, 273–289. doi:10.1348/000712606x
120618
Purcell, K., Elias, P., Davies, R., & Wilton, N. (2005). The Class of '99.
A study of the early labour market experiences of recent graduates. A
report to the Department for Education & Skills (UK). Retrieved
April 30, 2013, from http://www.hecsu.ac.uk/assets/assets/
documents/Class_99_Full.pdf
Qualter, P., Barlow, A., & Stylianou, M. S. (2011). Investigat-
ing the relationships between ability and trait emotional
intelligence, and theory of mind. British Journal of Develop-
mental Psychology, 29, 437–454. doi:10.1348/026151010X502
999
Qualter, P., Gardner, K. J., Pope, D., Hutchinson, J. M., & Whiteley,
H. E. (2012). Ability emotional intelligence, trait emotional intel-
ligence, and academic success in British secondary schools: A
5-year longitudinal study. Learning and Individual Differences, 22,
83–91. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.007
Qualter, P., Gardner, K. J., & Whiteley, H. E. (2007). Emotional
intelligence: Review of research and educational implica-
tions. Pastoral Care, 25(1), 11–20. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0122.2007.
00395.x
Repetto Talavera, E., & Pérez-González, J. C. (2007). Training in
socio-emotional skills through on-site training. European Journal
of Vocational Training, 40(1), 83–102.
Rothwell, A., & Arnold, J. (2007). Self-perceived employability:
Development and validation of a scale. Personnel Review, 46(1),
23–41. doi:10.1108/00483480710716704.
Sánchez-Ruiz, M. J., Pérez-González, J. C., & Petrides, K. V. (2010).
Trait emotional intelligence profiles of students from different
university faculties. Australian Journal of Psychology, 62(1), 51–57.
doi:10.1080/000495309033129707
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide
to structural equation modeling. London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Sewell, P., & Dacre Pool, L. (2010). Moving from conceptual ambi-
guity to operational clarity. Employability, enterprise and entre-
preneurship in higher education. Education and Training, 52(1),
89–94. doi:10.1108/00400911017708
Spector, P. (2006). Method variance in organizational research.
Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 221–
232. doi:10.1177/1094428105284955
Tariq, V. N., Qualter, P., Roberts, S., Appleby, Y., & Barnes, L. (2013).
Mathematical literacy in undergraduates: Role of gender and
emotional intelligence. International Journal of Mathematical
Education in Science and Technology, i-First. doi:10.1080/0020739X.
2013.770087
Van Rooy, D. L., Viswesvaran, C., & Pluta, P. (2005). An evaluation
of construct validity: What is this thing called emotional
intelligence? Human Performance, 18, 445–462. doi:10.1207/
s15327043hup1804_9
Vandervoort, D. J. (2006). The importance of emotional intelligence
in higher education. Current Psychology: Developmental-Learning-
Personality-Social, 25(1), 4–7. doi:10.1007/s12144-006-1011-7
Vitello-Cicciu, J. M. (2001). Leadership practices and emotional intelli-
gence of nursing leaders (Unpublished dissertation), Fielding Gradu-
ate Institute, Santa Barbara, CA. Cited in Vitello-Cicciu, J. M.
(2003). Emotional intelligence. Nursing Management. doi:10.1097/
00006247-200310000-00010
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation
models with non-normal variables. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural
equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56–75).
London: Sage.
Wittekind, A., Raeder, S., & Grote, G. (2010). A longitudinal
study of determinants of perceived employability. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 31, 566–586. doi:10.1002/job.
646
© 2013 The Australian Psychological Society
 Emotions, employability, and career satisfaction 223

Yorke, M. (2006). Employability in higher education: What it is—what it Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D., & Matthews, G. (2002). Can emotional
is not. Learning and Employability Series One. York: The Higher intelligence be schooled? A critical review. Educational Psycholo-
Education Academy. gist, 37(4), 215–231. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3704_2
Yorke, M., & Knight, P. T. (2006). Curricula for economic and social
gain. Higher Education, 51, 565–588. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-
1704-5.

© 2013 The Australian Psychological Society