See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317870561

The relationship between emotion regulation strategies and job search

behavior among fourth-year university students

Article in Journal of Adolescence · August 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.06.004

CITATIONS READS

38 1,143

4 authors, including:

Huihui Xu Ping Fang

Capital Normal University Capital Normal University
1 PUBLICATION 38 CITATIONS 13 PUBLICATIONS 328 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Huihui Xu on 08 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Adolescence 59 (2017) 139e147

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Adolescence
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jado

The relationship between emotion regulation strategies and

job search behavior among fourth-year university students*
Ling Wang*, Huihui Xu, Xue Zhang, Ping Fang
Beijing Key Laboratory of Learning and Cognition, Department of Psychology, Capital Normal University, Beijing, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The job search process is a stressful experience. This study investigated the effect of
Received 23 December 2016 emotion regulation strategies on job search behavior in combination with anxiety and job
Received in revised form 7 June 2017 search self-efficacy among Chinese university fourth-year students (N ¼ 816, mean
Accepted 12 June 2017
age ¼ 21.98, 31.5% male, 34.9% majored in science, 18.0% from “211 Project” universities).
Results showed that cognitive reappraisal was positively related to job search behavior,
while expressive suppression was negatively related to job search behavior. Additionally,
Keywords:
anxiety was negatively related to job search behavior, while job search self-efficacy was
Job search behavior
Emotion regulation strategy
positively associated with job search behavior. Moreover, both anxiety and job search self-
Self-efficacy efficacy mediated the relationship between emotion regulation strategies and job search
Anxiety behavior. In general, emotion regulation strategies played an important role in job search
behavior. Implications include the notion that emotion regulation interventions may be
helpful to increase job search behavior among university students.
© 2017 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier
Ltd. All rights reserved.

Unemployment can impair the financial and psychological status of individuals and their families (Liu, Huang, & Wang,
2014), as well as inhibit economic growth and elicit social problems, such as alcohol and drug abuse, or even crime
(Guindon & Smith, 2002). Finding a job is important to every job seeker, and perhaps especially important to university
graduates. For university graduates, an important task is the transition from school to work, and a successful transition is a
precursor of positive career consequences in later career stages (Pinquart, Juang, & Silbereisen, 2003).
Since the end of the 1990s, higher education in China has experienced a remarkable expansion. In China, university
students are expected to find a job after graduating from university, though about 10% of students choose to pursue post-
graduate study. Along with the increase in university students, graduates are facing severe employment pressure. In order to
improve the employment of university students, the government provides support through programs such as the “Specially
Contracted Teachers Plan,” “Three Supports and One Assistance Policy,” and “Employment Promotion Plan for Unemployed
University Graduates” to help university students to find a job. Universities have established courses related to job search and
career development before students enter their fourth year. In addition, universities hold employment exhibitions on campus
for fourth-year university students and employers during the period from October to May of the next year.
Job search behavior has been shown to be one of the most important predictors of job attainment and employment status
(Kanfer, Wanberg, & Kantrowitz, 2001; Saks & Ashforth, 1999, 2000; Van Hooft, Born, Taris, & Van der Flier, 2004). From the

*
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 31100757].
* Corresponding author. Department of Psychology, Capital Normal University, 100080, Shoutinanlu Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China.
E-mail address: wangling_lw@126.com (L. Wang).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.06.004
0140-1971/© 2017 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
140 L. Wang et al. / Journal of Adolescence 59 (2017) 139e147

perspective of self-regulation, job search behavior is conceptualized as “a purposive, volitional pattern of action that begins
with the identification and commitment to pursuing an employment goal” (Kanfer et al., 2001, p. 838). Job search behavior is a
complex and intensive procedure requiring investment in time and effort on behalf of job seekers (Georgiou, Nikolaou,
Tomprou, & Rafailidou, 2012). Job search behavior can be evaluated by job search effort and job search intensity (Blau,
1993; Kanfer et al., 2001). According to Blau (1994), job search intensity includes preparatory job search behavior intensity
(i.e., gathering information and identifying potential jobs during the planning phase of the job search) and active job search
behavior intensity (i.e., the actual job search and choice process, such as sending out resumes and interviewing with pro-
spective employers).
To some degree, the job search process is a stressful experience (e.g., Crossley & Stanton, 2005; Song, Uy, Zhang, & Shi,
2009), and this is especially true for university graduates because they often have difficulties finding satisfactory jobs due
to their lack of prior work experience and professional networks (Koen, Klehe, & Van Vianen, 2012). Anxiety occurs when an
individual perceives high uncertainty over an outcome and low control over a situation (Raghunathan & Pham, 1999). The job
search process often evokes a high level of anxiety; for example, individuals might worry about not getting the chance to go to
an interview or being rejected in the interview. Moreover, high anxiety might reduce performance on difficult tasks (Devine,
Fawcett, Szucs, & Dowker, 2012). Bonaccio, Gauvin, and Reeve (2014) argued that emotionality reduces job search clarity.
Furthermore, job seekers with high anxiety delay engaging in job search activities or reduce their job search efforts (Bonaccio
et al., 2014; Turban, Lee, Veiga, Haggard, & Wu, 2013). On the contrary, university student job seekers with higher positive
affect show higher scores on job search intensity (Co ^te, Saks, & Zikic, 2006). Therefore, using effective strategies for emotion
regulation is critical for university students in maintaining job search behavior and achieving a successful school-to-work
transition.
Emotion regulation has been linked to many important outcomes, such as mental health (Gross & Munoz, 1995), physical
health (Sapolsky, 2007), social relationships (Gross & John, 2003), and work performance (Diefendorff, Hall, Lord, & Strean,
2000). Emotion regulation involves the application and selection of strategies that influence the expression and experience of
emotions (Gross & John, 2003; Hu et al., 2014). Cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression are two types of emotion
regulation strategies that have been widely discussed in the literature. During cognitive reappraisal, people reduce the
emotional impact of an event by altering their subjective evaluation of the event (Gross, 1998a, 1998b, 2001). In contrast,
during expressive suppression, people consciously inhibit emotional-expressive behaviors when emotionally aroused (Gross
& Levenson, 1993). Previous studies have provided support for the superiority of the effect of cognitive reappraisal over
expressive suppression (e.g., Aldao & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2012b; Ehring, Tuschen-Caffier, Schnulle, Fischer, & Gross, 2010;
Werner, Goldin, Ball, Heimberg, & Gross, 2011). Compared to cognitive reappraisal, expressive suppression is less effective not
only in managing emotions such as anxiety, but also in strengthening subjective well-being and general life satisfaction (Hu
et al., 2014). Llewellyn, Dolcos, Jordan, Rudolph, and Dolcos (2013) argued that the use of expressive suppression versus
cognitive reappraisal may, in turn, confer risk or resilience to anxiety, respectively. In other words, using cognitive reappraisal
to positively reframe how we think about negative events may reduce anxiety, while using suppression to decrease the
expression of anxious feelings may exacerbate anxiety.
Job search self-efficacy refers to “an individual's confidence in his or her ability to successfully perform a variety of job-
search activities” (Wanberg, Watt, & Rumsey, 1996, p. 76). According to Bandura (1977), individuals with high self-efficacy
prefer challenging goals and strive to achieve them with great effort, while individuals with low self-efficacy avoid chal-
lenging tasks and are more likely to withdraw effort or even give up when facing challenging tasks. Similarly, Boswell, Swider,
and Zimmerman (2012) argued that job search self-efficacy has a positive effect on job search behavior because individuals
with high job search self-efficacy are more likely to engage in job search behavior with great effort. Research also supports job
search self-efficacy as one of the most important predictors of job search behavior, and many predictors exert their influence
on job search behavior through job search self-efficacy (Co ^ te
 et al., 2006; Kanfer et al., 2001; Vanryn & Vinokur, 1992;
Wanberg, Glomb, Song, & Sorenson, 2005). For example, Crossley and Stanton (2005) found that negative emotions influ-
ence job search intensity by reducing job search self-efficacy.

1. The present study

Emotion plays an important role during the job search process (Stevens & Seo, 2014). Although some research reports that
emotional control or stress coping is not related to job search intensity (Liu et al., 2014; Wanberg, Kanfer, & Rotundo, 1999),
other research suggests that it is important to consider emotion regulation when investigating job search behavior (Guindon
& Smith, 2002; Stevens & Seo, 2014; Wanberg, Basbug, Van Hooft, & Samtani, 2012), in that there may be a close link between
emotion regulation strategies and job search behavior. In addition, emotions may influence job search behavior through job
search self-efficacy (Crossley & Stanton, 2005). Thus, job search self-efficacy might represent the possible mechanism un-
derlying the relationship between emotion regulation strategy and job search behavior. On the other hand, in recent years,
university students in China have been facing high employment pressure along with the implementation of government
policies regarding university enrollment expansion. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the relationship be-
tween emotion regulation strategies and job search behavior in conjunction with job search self-efficacy among Chinese
fourth-year university students.
Cognitive reappraisal involves rethinking the meaning of an emotion-eliciting event so as to change its emotional impact,
whereas expressive suppression involves inhibiting or reducing the ongoing emotional-expressive behavior (Cutuli, 2014).
 L. Wang et al. / Journal of Adolescence 59 (2017) 139e147 141

Research has shown that cognitive reappraisal is related to more positive emotional experiences, while expressive sup-
pression may increase negative emotional experiences (Gross & John, 2003). In the job search context, Wanberg et al. (2012)
have argued that if individuals are unable to adequately manage their mood, job search activity might decline. Job seekers
with high anxiety will delay engaging in job search activities or reduce their job search efforts (Bonaccio et al., 2014; Turban
et al., 2013). Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:
H1. Cognitive reappraisal is positively related to job search behavior, while expressive suppression is negatively related to
job search behavior.
In addition, high anxiety has been found to delay or diminish job search activities (Bonaccio et al., 2014; Turban et al.,
2013). Anxiety is also negatively related to interview performance (McCarthy & Goffin, 2004) and the likelihood of being
employed, while it is positively related to job search self-efficacy (Zivin et al., 2016). On the other hand, based on research by
Llewellyn et al. (2013), cognitive reappraisal may reduce anxiety, while expressive suppression may exacerbate anxiety.
Furthermore, emotion regulation might play a role in job search activity (Wanberg et al., 2012). Thus, we proposed the
following hypothesis:
H2. Anxiety is negatively related to job search behavior, and anxiety plays a mediating role in the relationship between
emotion regulation strategies and job search behavior.
Job search self-efficacy serves as an important self-regulatory resource in the job search process (Kanfer & Hulin, 1985).
Boswell et al. (2012) have argued that job search self-efficacy has a positive effect on job search behavior. Guan et al. (2013)
have reported that job search self-efficacy relates positively with the intention, frequency, and intensity of job search behavior
and its outcome, such as the number of job offers. Furthermore, previous studies have suggested that many predictors exert
their influence on job search behavior through job search self-efficacy (Crossley & Stanton, 2005; Co ^ te
 et al., 2006; Kanfer
et al., 2001; Vanryn & Vinokur, 1992; Wanberg et al., 2005; Zimmerman, Boswell, Shipp, Dunford, & Boudreau, 2012).
Vinokur and Caplan (1987) found that job seekers' self-efficacy could be improved by providing them with support in stress
coping, which is consistent with Brown, Hillier, and Warren's (2010) finding that individuals with higher anxiety had lower
job search self-efficacy. High anxiety sets obstacles for individuals because it conveys and emphasizes the belief that they are
incapable of accomplishing the task (Brown et al., 2010). Hence, we proposed the following hypothesis:
H3. Job search self-efficacy is positively related to job search behavior, and job search self-efficacy plays a mediating role in
the relationship between emotion regulation strategies and job search behavior.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants and procedures

An initial sample of 999 fourth-year university students completed survey questionnaires. Of these initial 999 students,
816 students who had indicated that they planned to find a job before graduating from the university were included as
participants. In other words, students who indicated that they did not plan to find a job (e.g., because of post-graduate study
plans or other reasons, such as self-employment) were excluded from the sample. Of the 816 participants (Mage ¼ 21.98,
SD ¼ 1.002), 31.5% were male and 68.5% were female, 34.9% majored in science and 65.1% majored in society, 18% percent were
from “211 Project” universities (“211 Project” universities are the key universities certificated by the Chinese government),
and 82% were from non “211 Project” universities.
The participants were asked to complete a survey in a classroom setting. It took about 20 min to complete all the ques-
tionnaires. Participants were recruited from five universities in Beijing during the last two weeks of the fall semester; around
this time (January), fourth-year university students' job search activities were at their peak. Participants were volunteers, and
they could choose to withdraw from the investigation at any time without consequence.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Emotion regulation strategy

The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; Gross & John, 2003) consists of two subscales: Reappraisal (six items) and
Suppression (four items). Participants respond to each item on a 5-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly
agree). The ERQ has been translated and used with Chinese populations with validity and reliability evidence reported by
Wang, Liu, Li, and Du (2007) and Guo and Wang (2016). In this study, Cronbach's a was 0.79 for Reappraisal and 0.67 for
Suppression.

2.2.2. Anxiety
The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) (Spielberger, 1970) consists of 20 items. Participants rate the extent to which they
have been experiencing items related to anxiety over the last two months on a 4-point Likert scale (1 ¼ not at all to 4 ¼ very
142 L. Wang et al. / Journal of Adolescence 59 (2017) 139e147

Table 1
Results of confirmatory factor analyses of the emotion regulation questionnaire, state anxiety inventory, job search self-efficacy questionnaire, and job search
behavior scale.

Questionnaire c2 df NNFI CFI RMSEA 90% CI

Emotion Regulation Questionnaire 90.725 34 0.955 0.966 0.046 [0.034, 0.057]
The State Anxiety Inventory 598.813 106 0.901 0.931 0.076 [0.070, 0.082]
Job search self-efficacy Questionnaire 20.249 5 0.971 0.990 0.062 [0.035, 0.091]
Job Search Behavior Scale 982.956 180 0.901 0.915 0.075 [0.070, 0.079]

Note. c2 ¼ chi-square test; df ¼ degrees of freedom; NNFI ¼ nonnormed fit index; CFI ¼ comparative fit index; RMSEA ¼ root-mean-square error of
approximation; CI ¼ confidence interval.

much). The reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the STAI were confirmed by Li and Qian (1995). In this study,
Cronbach's a was 0.92.

2.2.3. Job search self-efficacy

Job search self-efficacy was assessed with a 6-item scale (Vanryn & Vinokur, 1992). Participants read a list of activities and
indicate their agreement on a 5-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree). This measure has been used
widely (e.g., Caplan, Vinokur, Price, & Van Ryn, 1989; Dahling, Melloy, & Thompson, 2013; Vinokur & Schul, 1997). In this
study, Cronbach's a was 0.82.

2.2.4. Job search behavior

The degree to which participants engaged in job search behavior was measured using the Job Search Behavior Scale (Blau,
1993), which contains three dimensions: preparatory job search behavior, active job search behavior, and general job search
effort. All items on the three dimensions were specified to represent a latent factor (i.e., job search behavior). The scale
showed high reliability and validity in Western populations (Saks, 2006; Saks & Ashforth, 1999, 2002). However, considering
developments in new forms of technology (e.g., Internet technology and electronic devices) and this study's target population
(i.e., university students rather than adults), we revised some items, as well as added some items based on previous studies.
The revised scale includes eight preparatory behavior items, nine active behavior items, and four general effort items. For the
17 behavior items, participants were asked to indicate the frequency they engaged in these behaviors on a 5-point Likert scale
(1 ¼ never, 5 ¼ very frequently). For the four general effort items, participants responded to each item on a 5-point Likert scale
(1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree). In this study, Cronbach's a was 0.85, 0.88, and 0.92 for Preparatory Job Search
Behavior, Active Job Search Behavior, and General Job Search Effort, respectively.

2.2.5. Control variables

Gender (1 ¼ male, 2 ¼ female) and university level (0 ¼ non-211 university, 1 ¼ 211 university) were included as control
variables because the literature suggests these variables are relevant to job search behavior (Kanfer et al., 2001; Saks, 2006).
Although age (in years) was also collected as a control variable, preliminary regression analyses showed that age had no
significant effect on anxiety, job search self-efficacy, or the three dimensions of job search behavior. Thus, age was excluded
from analyses.

3. Results

3.1. Measurement models

Four separate confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted. The first CFA was performed on responses to the two
emotion regulation strategy scales (i.e., cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression). The two strategy factors were

Table 2
Means, standard deviations, and correlations for the variables.

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1.Reappraisal 3.61 0.68 1
2.Suppression 2.82 0.77 0.186** 1
3.Anxiety 2.19 0.52 0.309** 0.050 1
4.JS Self-Efficacy 3.51 0.68 0.291** 0.016 0.160** 1
5.JS Behavior 2.74 0.76 0.092** 0.085* 0.012 0.230** 1
6.Active JS 2.34 0.84 0.042 0.069* 0.041 0.184** 0.868** 1
7.Preparatory JS 2.96 0.77 0.167** 0.047 0.090** 0.298** 0.841** 0.720** 1
8.General JS Effort 2.93 1.07 0.042 0.093** 0.071* 0.132** 0.844** 0.547** 0.508** 1

Note. 1 ¼ cognitive reappraisal strategy; 2 ¼ expression suppression strategy; 3 ¼ anxiety; 4 ¼ job search self-efficacy; 5 ¼ job search behavior; 6 ¼ active job
search behavior; 7 ¼ preparatory job search behavior; 8 ¼ general job search effort.
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.
 L. Wang et al. / Journal of Adolescence 59 (2017) 139e147 143

Fig. 1. The hypothesized model of emotion regulation strategy predicting job search behavior. Reappraisal ¼ cognitive reappraisal strategy; Suppression ¼
expressive suppression strategy; JS Self-Efficacy ¼ job search self-efficacy; Preparatory JS ¼ preparatory job search behavior; Active JS ¼ active job search
behavior; Global JS Effort ¼ global job search effort. Note. Gender and university level were two control variables in the model, serving as predictors for anxiety,
job search self-efficacy, and job search behavior. For the sake of clarity, gender and university level were omitted from Figure 1.

Fig. 2. The hypothetical model of emotion regulation strategy predicting job search behavior. All paths are significant. *p <0.05. **p <0.01. ***p <0.001.

allowed to be freely correlated with each other. As shown in Table 1, the model exhibited excellent fit to the data. All the items
loaded significantly onto the relevant latent constructs at the 0.001 level, and the average factor loading was 0.61. The second
CFA was performed on responses to the State Anxiety Inventory. As shown in Table 1, the responses to this measure
demonstrated good fit indices. All the items loaded significantly onto the latent construct of state anxiety at the 0.001 level,
and the average factor loading was 0.58. The third CFA was performed on responses to the Job Search Self-Efficacy Ques-
tionnaire. As shown in Table 1, responses to this measure demonstrated excellent fit indices. All factor loadings on the latent
construct were significant at the 0.001 level, and the average factor loading was 0.64. The fourth CFA was performed on
responses to the three subscales of the Job Search Behavior Scale (i.e., Preparatory Job Search Behavior, Active Job Search
Behavior, and General Job Search Effort). The three factors were allowed to be freely correlated with each other. Results
indicated that the model had good fit to the data. All the items loaded significantly onto the relevant latent constructs at the
0.001 level, and the average factor loading was 0.69. Taken together, the questionnaires were valid for this study's sample.

3.2. Descriptive statistics

The means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables are presented in Table 2. As expected, job search
behavior correlated positively with the three subscales that assessed preparatory job search behavior, active job search
behavior, and general effort job search. Anxiety negatively correlated with cognitive reappraisal. Job search self-efficacy was
positively associated with cognitive reappraisal, whereas it was negatively associated with anxiety. Cognitive reappraisal,
expressive suppression, and job search self-efficacy were all positively related to job search behavior.

3.3. Structural model

We performed structural equation modeling (SEM) to verify our hypotheses that both emotion regulation strategies
predict job search behavior through anxiety and job search self-efficacy, which is depicted in Fig. 1.
As shown in Fig. 2, the results revealed that after controlling for the effects of gender and university level on anxiety, job
search self-efficacy, and job search behavior, all the standardized coefficients in the model were significant; however, as
shown in Table 3, the fit indices for this model were not good enough.
Therefore, the hypothesized model was modified according to modification indices. One path was added to the model: the
path from cognitive reappraisal to job search self-efficacy. As shown in Table 3, the fit indices for this model were satisfactory;
therefore, we adopted this model as the final model. All the standardized coefficients in the modified model were significant.
In order to further test the mediating effect of anxiety and job search self-efficacy, we calculated the 95% confidence interval
through the bias-corrected bootstrap estimate by drawing 1000 random samples. An effect is significant when the confidence
144 L. Wang et al. / Journal of Adolescence 59 (2017) 139e147

Table 3
Results of path analyses of the emotion regulation strategy, anxiety, job search self-efficacy, and job search behavior.

Model c2 df NNFI CFI RMSEA 90% CI

The hypothesized model 184.950 21 0.806 0.864 0.099 [0.086, 0.112]
The modified model 131.299 20 0.862 0.908 0.083 [0.070, 0.097]

Note. c2 ¼ chi-square test; df ¼ degrees of freedom; NNFI ¼ nonnormed fit index; CFI ¼ comparative fit index; RMSEA ¼ root-mean-square error of
approximation; CI ¼ confidence interval.

Fig. 3. The modified model of emotion regulation strategy predicting job search behavior. All paths are significant. *p <0.05. **p <0.01. ***p <0.001.

interval excludes zero. Results showed that the indirect effect from cognitive reappraisal to job search behavior was 0.128, and
the 95% CI excluded zero (0.080, 0.177). In addition, the indirect effect from expressive suppression to job search behavior was
0.004, and the 95% CI excluded zero (0.009, 0.001) (See Fig. 3).
In accordance with our hypotheses, the modified model indicated that cognitive reappraisal negatively predicted anxiety,
and expressive suppression positively predicted anxiety. Furthermore, anxiety negatively predicted job search self-efficacy,
while self-efficacy positively predicted job search behavior. Therefore, cognitive reappraisal (positively) and expressive
suppression (negatively) predicted job search behavior through the mediators of anxiety and job search self-efficacy. In
addition, the model indicated that cognitive reappraisal directly predicted job search self-efficacy. Furthermore, the rela-
tionship between cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression was significant. Given these two variables are from the
same measure, the shared variance may reflect a common method bias.
Overall, the use of cognitive reappraisal strategies positively predicted job search behavior. On the contrary, the use of
expressive suppression strategies negatively predicted job search behavior. Moreover, anxiety and job search self-efficacy
mediated the relationship between emotion regulation strategies and job search behavior.

4. Discussion

In China, along with the university enrollment expansion, university students are facing increasing employment pressure
in recent years. Although government programs (e.g., “Three Supports and One Assistance Policy”), university career courses,
and employment exhibitions provide support for university students, fourth-year university students are nonetheless novice
job seekers who are prone to experience high anxiety because of their lack of job search experience and job experience. Thus,
emotion regulation is essential for university student job seekers to maintain or improve their job search behavior and its
outcome.
Our study found evidence of a close relationship between emotion regulation strategies and job search behavior among
Chinese university students in their fourth year. In particular, expressive suppression showed an indirect negative effect on
job search behavior through anxiety and job search self-efficacy. However, cognitive reappraisal showed an indirect positive
effect on job search behavior through anxiety and job search self-efficacy, as well as a direct positive effect on job search self-
efficacy. In general, cognitive reappraisal was positively related to job search behavior, while expressive suppression was
negatively related to job search behavior. This finding is consistent with previous literature in the job search field. Specifically,
cognitive reappraisal has been shown to be an effective strategy associated with less negative mood, more positive mood,
better psychological well-being, closer relationships, higher life satisfaction, and better physical health (Farmer & Kashdan,
2012; Fucito, Juliano, & Toll, 2010; Hu et al., 2014; Lockwood, Seara-Cardoso, & Viding, 2014). In contrast, research has
demonstrated that expressive suppression may exacerbate negative emotions (Hu et al., 2014; Llewellyn et al., 2013).
Our study also revealed a close relationship between anxiety and job search behavior. Anxiety was negatively associated
with job search behavior, and it played a mediating role in the relationship between emotion regulation strategies and job
search behavior. These results are in line with findings showing that cognitive reappraisal is negatively associated with
anxiety, while expressive suppression is positively associated with anxiety (Hu et al., 2014; Schafer, Naumann, Holmes,
Tuschen-Caffier, & Samson, 2017). This finding is also consistent with other studies that have shown that anxiety impairs
behavior or performance, especially on difficult tasks (Busari & Osiki, 2001; Chen & Tang, 2009). Obtaining a satisfactory job is
 L. Wang et al. / Journal of Adolescence 59 (2017) 139e147 145

a somewhat difficult task for university students (Koen et al., 2012); therefore, anxiety might negatively predict job search
behavior.
Consistent with our hypotheses, our research supported a close link between job search self-efficacy and job search
behavior. Job search self-efficacy was positively related to job search behavior and mediated the relationship between
emotion regulation strategies and job search behavior. In the model, almost all the antecedent variables of job search behavior
predicted job search behavior via job search self-efficacy. The existing literature has acknowledged the relationship between
job search self-efficacy and job search behavior (e.g., Duffy, Bott, Allan, & Torrey, 2013; Georgiou et al., 2012; Kanfer et al.,
2001; Van Hooft & Noordzij, 2009; Van Hooft, Born, Taris, Van der Flier, & Blonk, 2005; Wanberg et al., 2005). Moreover,
some studies have suggested that job search self-efficacy is one of the best predictors of job search behavior (Georgiou et al.,
2012; Saks, 2006; Van Hooft et al., 2005). These studies are in line with Bandura (1986) argument that self-efficacy is a
significant factor influencing behavior.
In general, our research indicated that cognitive reappraisal positively predicted job search behavior, while expressive
suppression negatively predicted job search behavior. Moreover, anxiety negatively predicted job search behavior, job search
self-efficacy positively predicted job search behavior; and anxiety and job search self-efficacy played mediating roles in the
relationship between emotion regulation strategies and job search behavior.
This study adds to the existing literature by identifying the significance that emotion regulation strategies may have on job
search behavior. Furthermore, this study identified anxiety and job search self-efficacy as possible mechanisms by which
emotion regulation strategies predict job search behavior.
The results of this study have some practical implications. In China, in order to cope with the severity of university
graduates' increasing employment pressure, the government provides support through programs, such as “Specially Con-
tracted Teachers Plan” and “Three Supports and One Assistance Policy.” In addition, universities provide career instruction
and employment exhibitions for university students. However, no programs have been administered from a psychological
perspective in China, although such interventions are both important and effective. For example, in the United Kingdom, the
Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) program, which aims to address the mental health problems that un-
derpin unemployment, was effective with regard to increased reemployment (Maguire, Hughes, Bell, Bogosian, & Hepworth,
2014). According to Liu et al. (2014), motivation enhancement and stress management are important perspectives to include
in job search interventions. Given that university student job seekers might be more anxious due to their lack of job search
experience and job experience, we argue that interventions that address emotion regulation strategies might be possible
options to improve their job search behavior and employment options. Cognitive reappraisal involves re-interpreting the
meaning of an event in a way that can reduce its emotional impact (Cutuli, 2014). As an adaptive emotional regulation
strategy (Aldao & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2012a), cognitive reappraisal may be helpful to maintain or promote job search behavior.
For example, before university students go for interviews, it would be beneficial for them to be “a reappraiser” who antici-
pates setbacks and tells himself, “rejection means that HR thinks the position does not suit me well, rather than I am a loser
with low competence,” “I can work harder to find and seize the next chance,” and “I can find a job that fits me in the future.”
Low anxiety will make them feel more confident with themselves, which, in turn, may maintain or increase job search
behavior. Therefore, interventions that aim to improve job seekers' emotion regulation strategies can benefit their job search
behavior and employment options, especially for novice job seekers, such as university students.
Some limitations of the study must also be considered. First, the findings are based on correlational data; therefore, the
conclusions should be treated with caution. Second, this study revealed the effect of emotion regulation strategies on job
search behavior; however, it did not examine the effect of these variables on employment status. Future studies could adopt a
multiple-time measurement research design, rather than a cross-sectional design, to examine the longitudinal effects of
emotion regulation strategies on job search behavior and the final outcome of employment status.

References

Aldao, A., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2012a). The influence of context on the implementation of adaptive emotion regulation strategies. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 50(7e8), 493e501.
Aldao, A., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2012b). When are adaptive strategies most predictive of psychopathology? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121(1),
276e281.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-Efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191e215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Blau, G. (1993). Further exploring the relationship between job search and voluntary individual turnover. Personnel Psychology, 46(2), 313e330.
Blau, G. (1994). Testing a 2-dimensional measure of job search behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59(2), 288e312.
Bonaccio, S., Gauvin, N., & Reeve, C. L. (2014). The experience of emotions during the job search and choice process among novice job seekers. Journal of
Career Development, 41(3), 237e257.
Boswell, W. R., Swider, B. W., & Zimmerman, R. D. (2012). Employee job search: Toward an understanding of search context and search objectives. Journal of
Management: Official Journal of the Southern Management Association, 38(1), 129e163.
Brown, T., Hillier, T. L., & Warren, A. M. (2010). Youth employability training: Two experiments. Career Development International, 15(2e3), 166e187.
Busari, A. O., & Osiki, J. O. (2001). Test anxiety management for schools: A cognitive behaviour programme. Ilorin Journal of Education, 2(1), 1e9.
Caplan, R. D., Vinokur, A. D., Price, R. H., & Van Ryn, M. (1989). Job seeking, reemployment, and mental health: A randomized field experiment in coping
with job loss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(5), 759e769.
Chen, S., & Tang, D. (2009). The influence of test anxiety on false memory. Psychological Development and Education, 25(1), 46e53.
^ te
Co , S., Saks, A. M., & Zikic, J. (2006). Trait affect and job search outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(2), 233e252.
Crossley, C. D., & Stanton, J. M. (2005). Negative affect and job search: Further examination of the reverse causation hypothesis. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 66(3), 549e560.
146 L. Wang et al. / Journal of Adolescence 59 (2017) 139e147

Cutuli, D. (2014). Cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression strategies role in the emotion regulation: An overview on their modulatory effects and
neural correlates. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8(175).
Dahling, J. J., Melloy, R., & Thompson, M. N. (2013). Financial strain and regional unemployment as barriers to job search self-efficacy: A test of social
cognitive career theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(2), 210e218.
Devine, A., Fawcett, K., Szucs, D., & Dowker, A. (2012). Gender differences in mathematics anxiety and the relation to mathematics performance while
controlling for test anxiety. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 8(33), 1e9.
Diefendorff, J. M., Hall, R. J., Lord, R. G., & Strean, M. L. (2000). Action-state orientation: Construct validity of a revised measure and its relationship to work-
related variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 250e263.
Duffy, R. D., Bott, E. M., Allan, B. A., & Torrey, C. L. (2013). Examining a model of life satisfaction among unemployed adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
60(1), 53e63.
Ehring, T., Tuschen-Caffier, B., Schnulle, J., Fischer, S., & Gross, J. J. (2010). Emotion regulation and vulnerability to depression: Spontaneous versus instructed
use of emotion suppression and reappraisal. Emotion, 10(4), 563e572.
Farmer, A. S., & Kashdan, T. B. (2012). Social anxiety and emotion regulation in daily life: Spillover effects on positive and negative social events. Cognitive
Behaviour Therapy, 41(2), 152e162.
Fucito, L. M., Juliano, L. M., & Toll, B. A. (2010). Cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression emotion regulation strategies in cigarette smokers. Nicotine
& Tobacco Research, 12(11), 1156e1161.
Georgiou, K., Nikolaou, I., Tomprou, M., & Rafailidou, M. (2012). The role of job seekers' individual characteristics on job seeking behavior and psychological
well-being. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(4), 414e422.
Gross, J. J. (1998a). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 224e237.
Gross, J. J. (1998b). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271e299.
Gross, J. J. (2001). Emotion regulation in adulthood: Timing is everything. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(6), 214e219.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348e362.
Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1993). Emotional Suppression: Physiology, self-report, and expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
64(6), 970e986.
Gross, J. J., & Munoz, R. F. (1995). Emotion regulation and mental-health. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 2, 151e164.
Guan, Y., Deng, H., Sun, J., Wang, Y., Cai, Z., Ye, L., … Li, Y. (2013). Career adaptability, job search self-efficacy and outcomes: A three-wave investigation
among Chinese university graduates. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 561e570.
Guindon, M. H., & Smith, B. (2002). Emotional barriers to successful reemployment: Implications for counselors. Journal of Employment Counseling, 39(2),
73e82.
Guo, X., & Wang, L. (2016). Relationship among emotion regulation strategy, regulation mode and anxiety in seniors. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 30(9),
706e711.
Hu, T. Q., Zhang, D. J., Wang, J. L., Mistry, R., Ran, G. M., & Wang, X. Q. (2014). Relation between emotion regulation and mental health: A meta-analysis
review. Psychological Reports, 114(2), 341e362.
Kanfer, R., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). Individual differences in successful job searches following lay-off. Personnel Psychology, 38(4), 835e847.
Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C. R., & Kantrowitz, T. M. (2001). Job search and employment: A personalityemotivational analysis and meta-analytic review. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86(5), 837e855.
Koen, J., Klehe, U. C., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2012). Training career adaptability to facilitate a successful school-to-work transition. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 81(3), 395e408.
Li, W., & Qian, M. (1995). Revision of the state-trait anxiety inventory with sample of Chinese college students. Actacentiarum Naturalum Universitis
Pekinesis, 1, 108e112.
Liu, S., Huang, J. L., & Wang, M. (2014). Effectiveness of job search interventions: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1009e1041.
Llewellyn, N., Dolcos, S., Jordan, A. D., Rudolph, K. D., & Dolcos, F. (2013). Reappraisal and suppression mediate the contribution of regulatory focus to
anxiety in healthy adults. Emotion, 13(4), 610e615.
Lockwood, P. L., Seara-Cardoso, A., & Viding, E. (2014). Emotion regulation moderates the association between empathy and prosocial behavior. Plos One,
9(5), e96555.
Maguire, N., Hughes, V. C., Bell, L., Bogosian, A., & Hepworth, C. (2014). An evaluation of the choices for well-being project. Psychology Health & Medicine,
19(3), 303e315.
McCarthy, J., & Goffin, R. (2004). Measuring job interview anxiety: Beyond weak knees and sweaty palms. Personnel Psychology, 57(3), 607e637.
Pinquart, M., Juang, L. P., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2003). Self-efficacy and successful school-to-work transition: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 63(3), 329e346.
Raghunathan, R., & Pham, M. T. (1999). All negative moods are not equal: Motivational influences of anxiety and sadness on decision making. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(1), 56e77.
Saks, A. M. (2006). Multiple predictors and criteria of job search success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 400e415.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1999). Effects of individual differences and job search behaviors on the employment status of recent university graduates.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(2), 335e349.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2000). Change in job search behaviors and employment outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56(2), 277e287.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2002). Is job search related to employment quality? It all depends on the fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 646e654.
Sapolsky, R. M. (2007). Stress, stress-related disease, and emotional regulation. In J. G. James (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 606e615). New York:
Guilford Press.
Schafer, J. O., Naumann, E., Holmes, E. A., Tuschen-Caffier, B., & Samson, A. C. (2017). Emotion regulation strategies in depressive and anxiety symptoms in
youth: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(2), 261e276.
Song, Z., Uy, M. A., Zhang, S., & Shi, K. (2009). Daily job search and psychological distress: Evidence from China. Human Relations, 62(8), 1171e1197.
Spielberger, C. D. (1970). STAI manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Self-Evaluation Questionnaire, 1e24.
Stevens, C. K., & Seo, M.-G. (2014). Job search and emotions. In K. Y. T. Yu, & D. M. Cable (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of recruitment (pp. 126e138). NY: Oxford
University Press.
Turban, D. B., Lee, F. K., Veiga, S. P., Haggard, D. L., & Wu, S. Y. (2013). Be happy, don't wait: The role of trait affect in job search. Personnel Psychology, 66(2),
483e514.
Van Hooft, E. A. J., Born, M. P., Taris, T. W., & Van der Flier, H. (2004). Job search and the theory of planned behavior: Minority-majority group differences in
The Netherlands. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(3), 366e390.
Van Hooft, E. A. J., Born, M. P., Taris, T. W., Van der Flier, H., & Blonk, R. W. B. (2005). Bridging the gap between intentions and behavior: Implementation
intentions, action control, and procrastination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 238e256.
Van Hooft, E. A. J., & Noordzij, G. (2009). The effects of goal orientation on job search and reemployment: A field experiment among unemployed job
seekers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1581e1590.
Vanryn, M., & Vinokur, A. D. (1992). How did it work? An examination of the mechanisms through which an intervention for the unemployed promoted
job-search behavior. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20(5), 577e597.
Vinokur, A., & Caplan, R. D. (1987). Attitudes and social support: Determinants of job-seeking behavior and well-being among the unemployed. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 17(12), 1007e1024.
 L. Wang et al. / Journal of Adolescence 59 (2017) 139e147 147

Vinokur, A. D., & Schul, Y. (1997). Mastery and inoculation against setbacks as active ingredients in the JOBS intervention for the unemployed. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(5), 867e877.
Wanberg, C., Basbug, G., Van Hooft, E. A. J., & Samtani, A. (2012). Navigating the black hole: Explicating layers of job search context and adaptational
responses. Personnel Psychology, 65(4), 887e926.
Wanberg, C. R., Glomb, T. M., Song, Z., & Sorenson, S. (2005). Job-search persistence during unemployment: A 10-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(3), 411e430.
Wanberg, C. R., Kanfer, R., & Rotundo, M. (1999). Unemployed individuals: Motives, job-search competencies, and job-search constraints as predictors of job
seeking and reemployment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 897e910.
Wanberg, C. R., Watt, J. D., & Rumsey, D. J. (1996). Individuals without jobs: An empirical study of job-seeking behavior and reemployment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81(1), 76e87.
Wang, L., Liu, H., Li, Z., & Du, W. (2007). Reliability and validity of emotion regulation questionnaire Chinese revised version. China Journal of Health
Psychology, 15(6), 503e505.
Werner, K. H., Goldin, P. R., Ball, T. M., Heimberg, R. G., & Gross, J. J. (2011). Assessing emotion regulation in social anxiety disorder: The emotion regulation
interview. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 33(3), 346e354.
Zimmerman, R. D., Boswell, W. R., Shipp, A. J., Dunford, B. B., & Boudreau, J. W. (2012). Explaining the pathways between approach-avoidance personality
traits and employees' job search behavior. Journal of Management: Official Journal of the Southern Management Association, 38(5), 1450e1475.
Zivin, K., Yosef, M., Levine, D. S., Abraham, K. M., Miller, E. M., Henry, J., … Valenstein, M. (2016). Employment status, employment functioning, and barriers
to employment among VA primary care patients. Journal of Affective Disorders, 193, 194e202.

View publication stats