The main purpose of a person continuing to higher education is to get a desirable job after graduation. But in reality, to get a dream job is not easy. Long journey must be passed, not only after college, but during the learning process in college. Therefore, understanding how the academic and employment succes among undergraduate students is not only crucial for educational institutions to maximize the potential of their students during their education but also help students to prepare as early as possible to achieve success after they graduate. Research has shown that academic and / or employment succes are influenced by intelligence (e.g. Steinmayr & Kessels, 2017; Bergman, Corovic, Ferrer-Wreder, & Modig, 2014; Downey, Lomas, Billings, Hansen, & Stough, 2014; Strenze, 2007; Poropat, 2009; Deary, Strand, Smith, & Fernandes, 2007; Gottfredson, 1997, 2003; Schmidt & Hunter, 2004) , efficacy belief (e.g. Choi, 2005; Galyon et. al., 2012; (Damian, Stoeber, Negru-Subtirica, & Baban, 2016; Schunk, 2001; Schunk & Pajares, 2002) and personality (e.g. Poropat, 2009; Steinmayr & Kessels, 2017; Rikoon et al., 2016; Ivcevic & Brackett, 2014; Downey et. al., 2014; Uysal & Pohlmeier, 2011; Wichert and Pohlmeier, 2010). Therefore, this study intends to examine the interaction between these variables in the success of obtaining employment in undergraduate students.
The role of IQ in academic and employment success has been researched well, although sometimes the results are inconsistent, as well as the role of conscientiousness and efficacy belief. However, previous research emphasizes more on the importance of positive traits in gaining success, while negative traits have not been explored much. This project has identified an area of academic and employment success that has not been investigated up to this point, this is a negative traits effect (dark triad personality) (Paulhus & Williams, 2002) that may affect the dynamics between the variables that have been studied previously. Past investigation about dark triad personality has focused on negative consequences (Jonason, Slomski, & Partyka, 2012; Spain et al., 2014). However, as Judge and LePine (2007) stated, there might also exist bright sides of dark traits (e.g., better performance in negotiations, lower expressed stress and anxiety, and preference for jobs with greater responsibility).
This project is a collaboration of three different types of research so that the results will support each other and expected to be found more comprehensive conclusions. The first project was a prospective design study titled “Predicting employment succes among Indonesian undergraduate students”, the second project was a quasi experimental design study titled “Will they choose me as the employee? : A Quasi-experimental study on the role of dark triad personality traits on employability “, and the third project is expose facto design study tittled ” The role of personality in job promotion “.
In the following pages, the reader will find an overview of the project, followed by discussion of the major concepts, the purpose and the hypotheses of the project, the methods and procedures that are used to investigate the dynamic of constientiousness, efficacy, dark triad personality and intelligence role in academic and employment success.
At the end of their studies, undergraduate students experience a critical period since they are not only required to complete their studies, but also they must begin to search information about employment after graduation or may choose continuing further studies (Boswell, Zimmerman, & Swider, 2012). Finding a job is complicated and difficult for college graduates and they are at threat to be unemployed (Brown, Cober, Kane, Levy & Shalhoop, 2006). Some obstacles might be faced by young job seekers and might bother their ability to obtain a job (Wanberg, Kanfer, & Rotundo, 1999).
Difficulties finding a job occurs mainly in developing countries, where the availability of employment is not proportional to the number of available labor (Santoso, 2011). Indonesia as one of the countries with the densest population number four in the world, also experienced similar problems. With the number of colleges reaching 4.492 (forlap.dikti.go.id, 2017) and 750.000 university graduates every year (www.harnas.co/2016/11/17/kemenaker-jumlah-pengangguran-sarjana-meningkat) then the competition to get a job becomes very tight.
The difficulty of Indonesian university graduates to get a job domestically is indicated by the increase in the number of educated unemployment Indonesia each year (www.jawapos.com, 2017). Based on data from the Indonesian Central Statistics Agency the number of unemployed with undergraduate education background increase (BPS, 2016). In the year of 2014, the number of unemployed undergraduates were 398,298 people, rising to 565,402 people in 2015, and increasing to 695,304 in 2016 (BPS, 2016). Ironically, the number of unemployed undergraduates was recorded higher than the number of unemployed with below-average level of education, 249,362 people in 2016 (BPS, 2016).
Another fact noted, the period to get a job also varies (Putranto & Mashuri, 2008), the average bachelor graduate gets the first job after four a months until two years after graduation (Putranto & Mashuri, 2008). The first type of graduates’ most dominant occupations are school private teachers, private employees and parttime teaching / tentor (Muhson, Wahyuni, & Mulyani, 2012). The average salary of Indonesian workers varies depending on the regions and companies. For undergraduate students without experience, government determines monthly salary Rp. 2.456.700,00 for civil cervant (Menpan, 2017), and the average salary regardless the job type Rp. 1.520.100,00 (BPS, 2017). The amount of salary is very minimal when compared with the standard of living for one person which have ranged between Rp. 1.337.645,00 to Rp.3.355.750,00 (depending on the region) (UMP, 2017).
As a result, there are unanswered questions. What factors are involved in the process to employment succes? Is successful getting a job influenced by academic success? Is successful getting a job influenced by other factors?
Intelligence has been proven as an important predictor ofacademic succes (e.g. (Steinmayr & Kessels, 2017; Bergman, Corovic, Ferrer-Wreder, & Modig, 2014; Downey, Lomas, Billings, Hansen, & Stough, 2014; Neisser & Others, 1995; Walberg, 1984; Strenze, 2007; Poropat, 2009; Deary, Strand, Smith, & Fernandes, 2007) ‘‘Intelligence is not the amount of information people know, but their ability to recognize, acquire, organize, update, select, and apply it effectively. In educational contexts, these complex mental behaviors are referred to as higher thinking skills’’ (Gottfredson, 1997, p. 93). High intelligence were describe as higher level abilities (such as abstract reasoning, mental representation, problem solving, and decision making), ability to learn, and adaptation to meet the demands of the environment effectively (Sternberg, 1997).
Intelligence Quotient (IQ) is highly correlated with school achievement and having a high IQ adequately intensify the opportunity to achieved a high education (Bergman, Corovic, Ferrer-Wreder, & Modig, 2014). Academic achievement demonstrated positive associations with intelligence 0.31 (Steinmayr & Kessels, 2017). Downey et. al, (2014) pointed out that IQ score correlates with the academic performance (GPA) of 0.46 and that variation in GPA was accounted for by IQ (21.8%). As well as Downey’s research, the strongest observed relationship with GPA was with IQ scores and explained over 20% of the variance in GPA scores (Neisser & Others, 1995). Walberg and his colleagues, in a survey of close to 3000 empirical studies, conclude that IQ emerged as the most powerful determinant among dozens of factors examined to academic achievement with an average correlation of .71 (Walberg, 1984). The meta-analysis by Strenze (2007) also found intelligence and educational succes have correlation of 0.56. Poropat (2009) found a small to medium association between intelligence and GPA, whereas intelligence and standardized scholastic performance tests were found to be very highly correlated (Deary et al., 2007).
As important as in educational achievement, some studies indicate the predictive ability of IQ to employment succes. Although sometimes intelligence was claimed has no relationship to important real-life outcomes (for review of such claims, see Barrett & Depinet, 1991), the scientific research leaves evidence that IQ tests score correlated with better education, prestigious occupations, and higher incomes (Gottfredson, 1997, 2003; Schmidt & Hunter, 2004).
Some research consider the relationship between IQ and employment succes is indirect (Reily & Warech, 1993). Many employers screen job applicants based on a minimum GPA threshold, or consider grades as a heavily weighted criterion when analyzing resumes (Reilly & Warech, 1993). The correlations of academic performance with education (p=.53) and occupation (p=.37) verified that academic performance is a substansial predictor of educational and employment success (Strenze, 2007). However, the evidence that intelligence directly correlates with success employment is also commonly found. Different studies and meta-analyses haven frequently shown that intelligence is an important predictor of vocational success due to the major reason that higher ability individuals learn relevant job knowledge more quickly and learn more of it (Hunter & Schmidt, 1996). The greater academic success as measured by GPA has been previously found to be associated with better employment outcomes (Hunter & Schmidt, 1996). Hunter & Schmidt (2004) also noted the association between intelligence and job success is r = 0.5, which is comparable to the association between intelligence and academic achievement. Vocational success was significantly positively correlated 0.32 to intelligence (Steinmayr & Kessels, 2017). Strenze (2007) found that intelligence correlates 0.43 with success in the field of employment.
Moreover, high IQ would have a stronger relationship to positive career outcomes/vocational level in midlife for men but not for women (Bergman, Corovic, Ferrer-Wreder, 2014). Another, meta-analysis was conducted from 8 studies and found an average correlation of .27 between intelligence and salary (Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005).
Personality traits are the important predictor on many life outcomes such as academic success (Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi, & Goldberg, 2007). One of the most consistent predictor of academic success in academic settings is conscientiousness (Noftle & Robins, 2007). Conscientiousness is also consistently related to school success across age and level of schooling, and largely independent of general intelligence (Poropat, 2009). People with high conscientiousness are described by obedience, high self-control, will to achieve, high determination, full of purposes, and dependability (De Raad and Perugini, 2002). These characteristics are useful for academic success (Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham, 2008; Komarraju et al., 2009).
In one of the largest studies with more than 10,000 participants, Noftle and Robins (2007) demonstrated that conscientiousness is the strongest predictor of both high school and college GPA. High Conscientiousness predicts good undergraduate study habits (Delaney et al., 2013) and GPA (Wagerman & Funder, 2007). Conscientiousness showed the highest correlations with GPA ( r = .22, p < .001) (Downey, Lomas, Billings, Hansen, & Stough, 2014). Chamorro-Premuzic, Furnham, and Conscientiousness is a good predictor of academic success (r = .19 to .31) on measures including examinations, continuous assessment (presentations), written essays (Ackerman, 2006), exam performance (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003a).
The hard-working, persistent, organized, and careful aspect of Conscientiousness is a significantly become positive predictor for two graduation outcomes and grade point average (GPA) (Burks et al., 2015). Due to the characteristic of conscientiousness, it is no doubt that students high in Conscientiousness are more likely to earn top grades than their peers (Lounsbury et al., 2003).
Not only in academic setting, previous studies have established Conscientiousnessn as another general predictor for high performance across various fields (Barrick & Mount, 1991). There is an established literature showing that cognitive ability (intelligence) and Conscientiousness represent two of the strongest psycho-educational predictors of performance both at school and on the job (e.g., Poropat, 2009; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Conscientiousness has been shown to be the most important predictor of vacoational succes with average correlations of around r=0.30 (Judge et al.,2013). The most general findings were that conscientiousness positively predicted intrinsic (job satisfaction) and extrinsic career success (income and occupational status) (Judge et al., 1999). Conscientiousness also was unrelated to starting salary growth but significantly so to salary growth (Wiersma & Kappe, 2017). However, due to the conscientiousness character as a intrinsically motivated and well organized, employees with high conscientious grow their salaries quicker compare to employee with low level of conscientiousness (Wiersma & Kappe, 2017).
Moreover, conscientious person who is organized, hard working, and achievement-oriented, is more likely to be motivated to perform well and will display higher not only academic performance than the person who is not but also willing to strugle in job search. Conscientiousness have a positive strong impact on the instantaneous probability of finding a job (Uysal & Pohlmeier, 2011). Wichert and Pohlmeier (2010) in their study on female labor force participation found that Conscientiousness and openess affect the participation probability to search information of job positively. Schmit et al. also (1993) show that Conscientiousness and Openness are positively correlated with an efficient job search behavior.
The dark triad consists of three personality traits— Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy—that have in common that they “reflect a tendency to be callous, selfish, and malevolent in their interpersonal dealings” (Paulhus & Williams, 2002, p. 100).
The willingness to manipulate and exploit others characterizes individuals high in Machiavellianism (Spain et al., 2014). Individuals high in Machiavellianism follow three core values: the belief in the effectiveness of manipulative tactics in dealing with other people, a cynical view of human nature, and a moral outlook that puts expediency above principle (O’Boyle et al., 2012). Narcissism is charac- terized by a grandiose, yet fragile, sense of the self, a preoccupation with success, a demand for admiration, an engagement in self-enhancement, and by difficulties in main- taining interpersonal relationships due to a lack of trust and care for others (Ames, Rose, & Anderson, 2006). Psychopathy is shaped by impulsivity, low empathy and anxiety, a lack of guilt or remorse, emotional shallowness, a belief in the super- iority of oneself, and a parasitic lifestyle which can involve criminal activities (O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012).
Machiavellianism has a long research tradition within leader- ship research (Dahling et al., 2008). This is not surprising, given that core attributes of individuals high in Machiavellian- ism, such as the willingness to manipulate and exploit others, can be easier lived out in positions with high responsibility and authority over other people. Although it was shown that Machiavellianism is associated with diminished organiza- tional, supervisor, and team commitment (Zettler, Friedrich, & Hilbig, 2011), along with a tendency to be perceived as abu- sive by subordinates (Kiazad, Restubog, Zagenczyk, Kiewitz, & Tang, 2010), Machiavellianism is beneficial for attaining leadership positions (Dahling et al., 2008). This could also pos- sibly be because individuals high in Machiavellianism make occupational choices associated with legal and management careers (Dahling et al., 2008). Furthermore, they tend to focus on maintaining and broadening power (Kessler et al., 2010), strive for control, and have a desire for status (Dahling et al., 2008).
Empirically, research showed that Machiavellianism is positively related to political skills and need for achievement (Dahling et al., 2008), which are both positively related to objective objective career success (Ferris et al., 2005; Ng et al., 2005). Another study suggested that compared to individuals high in psychopathy, individuals high in Machiavellianism more often apply soft manipulation tactics (e.g., charm, appearance, jok- ing, compromise, exchange of a favor, alliances, and offering compliments) that are socially acceptable and therefore do not backfire in the mid- to long term (Jonason et al., 2012). These tendencies and behaviors should enhance objective career success. Regarding subjective career success, comparable to narcissism, the reasoning is not as clear as it is for objective career success. Individuals high in Machiavellianism report lower lev- els of job satisfaction, possibly because they are likely to desire greater rewards and control over others (Dahling et al., 2008). However, subjective career success is slightly different from job satisfaction and focuses more on successes already attained and on career progress from the past until now (Ng et al., 2005; Spurk et al., 2011). Therefore, future desires are not the most important factors when evaluating actual career success. Con- sequentially, individuals high in Machiavellianism might feel successful in their careers because of their powerful, presti- gious.
By using the Dark Triad Personality framework Spurk et al., (2015), showed that the traits Machiavellianism and narcissism positively associated with objective career success (marked with appropriate salary) and subjective career success (which is marked by job satisfaction), while Psychopathy traits has a negative correlation with objective and subjective success.
Machiavellianism has a positive contribution to success because a person who has this personality will tend to manipulate and exploit others. It is easier for him/her to obtain the desired position (Dahling et al., 2008). Empirically demonstrated that Machiavellianism also has political skills and need for achievement (Dahling et al., 2008) which were both positively associated with objective career success (Ferris et al., 2005; Ng et al., 2005).
Machiavellianism had a nonsignificant relationship with salary (B =.02, p = .633) but a significant positive relationship with leadership position (B=.22, p=< .001) and marginally significant with career satisfaction (B=.10, p = .052) (Spurk, Keller, & Hirschi, 2016).
Meanwhile, narcissism is positively related to career success because people in this category have a tendency and motivated to be recognized, more successful than the others and have high self-worth (Jonason& Webster, 2010; Spain et al., 2014). Elliot & Trash (2001) concluded that there are several components in the narcissism that is positively related to achievement. Furthermore,narcissism using their need for recognition of their achievements as a source for generating self-enhancement (Campbell et al., 2000; Rhodewalt&Morf, 1998).
In the social-personality view, narcissism is a normally distributed trait characterised by a sense of grandiosity, self-love, and inflated self-view (Foster & Campbell, 2007). Someone who has a high level of narcissism usually has strong self- confidence and consider themselves as the best person among others (Raskin, Novacek, & Hogan, 1991; Goncalo, Flynn, & Kim, 2010). Due to the high self-confidence, narcissist shows active self-promotion to increase their self-esteem and gain the acknowledgement (Raskin, Novacek, & Hogan, 1991).
Research shows that people high in narcissism perform well in impression management, they should make a better first impression especially in selection contexts – this initial advantage sufﬁcient enough to promote success in short-term contexts such as job interviews (Campbell, Rudich,& Sedikides, 2002). This situation might help narcissistic acquire high rating in job interview and obtain prestigious jobs (Paulhus et.al, 2013). Narcissists succeed to make self-presentation use many tactics to achieve impression management even though they must make a self-deception (Horvath & Morf, 2010; Paulhus, 1998). The most prominent of self-enhancement they are used are (exaggeration of their positive qualities) and self-praise (bragging) (Paulhus et.al, 2013).
Notably, some studies show that initial reactions to narcissists are actually positive (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2010; Friedman, Oltmanns, Gleason, & Turkheimer, 2006; Paulhus, 1998) they are more accepted at the job they want. A crucial element may be the persistence exhibited by chronic self-promoters (Ready &Weitenhagen, 2009). They won’t back down on their exaggerations even in light of concrete contradictory evidence (Robins & John, 1997). In some cases, they may actually redouble their efforts when given the opportunity to shine (Wallace & Baumeister, 2002).
Another research has different argumentation. They argue people high in narcissism have an inflated self-view and over self-confident, it is not surprising make them has high generalised self-efficacy (Hirschi & Jaensch, 2015). Self-efficacy beliefs make them motivated to strive for personal goals and have a desire to self-promote and engage in attention-seeking behaviours (O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012). Hirschi & Jaensch (2015) also concluded that at least some components of narcissism are positively related to achievement orientation. Achievement orientation, in turn, is positively associated with career goals (Judge & Bretz, 1992), therefore goal selection processes may be the reason whereby people with high narcissism are objectively more successful in their job interview. Furthermore, within success related situations, narcissists exhibit strong emotional reactions and use the emotion as a source of self-enhancement (Campbell, Reeder, Sedikides, & Elliot, 2000).
In consequence, the dynamic of self-confident, self-efficacy and high motivation and self-promotion make people with high level of narcissism might be more inclined to apply career strategies such as positioning behaviours, influence behaviours, and positive self-presentation that are deemed to be important for career success (Kuijpers & Scheerens, 2006). Although it seems to be no robust connection between the level of narcissism and job performance ratings (O’Boyle et al., 2012), these behaviours might help high-narcissistic people to self-promote (Brunell, Gentry, Campbell, Hoffman, Kuhnert, & DeMarree, 2008).
On the contrary, psychopathic which have attributes such as impulsivity, low empathy, and anxiety, a lack of guilt or remorse, emotional shallowness, a belief in the superiority of oneself, and a parasitic lifestyle can involve; roommates criminal activities (O’Boyle et al., 2012) negatively correlated with a person’s success in employment (Spurk et al., 2015). This is because the individual who has psychopathy attribute has problems associated with social adjustment (Jonason et al., 2012).
Due to psychopathic attributes such as impulsivity, emotional shallowness, and lack of remorse, psychopaths have dimin- ished levels of corporate responsibility and can adversely affect productivity (Boddy, Ladyshewsky, & Galvin, 2010). Psycho- pathy is, for example, positively related to severe forms of counterproductive work behavior (Smith & Lilienfeld, 2013) and is the strongest (negative) predictor of job performance among the Dark Triad traits (O’Boyle et al., 2012; Spain et al., 2014). Individuals high in psychopathy apply hard and aggressive manipulation tactics (e.g., threat of appeal and threat of punishment), which suggest that they face strong occupational socialization problems (Jonason et al., 2012). Finally, although little empirical research has been done on this topic, these results suggest that psychopaths suffer from con- stant intraorganizational repositioning and involuntary turn- over (Spain et al., 2014). In sum, this may lead to severe disadvantages for them in prevalent career tournament systems, where people are hired and promoted based on their past achievements. According to such a contest–mobility perspec- tive of career success (Rosenbaum, 1984), individuals high in psychopathy might suffer from lowered career success because they do not receive organizational rewards such as higher sal- aries or higher positions (O’Boyle et al., 2012; Spain et al., 2014). From a sponsored-mobility perspective, where career success is attained through the help of impactful third persons or networks (Rosenbaum, 1984), psychopaths might achieve lower career success because of the socialization problems described above (Boddy et al., 2010). Empirically, this reasoning is in line with a study by Ullrich, Farrington, and Coid (2008) who identified negative relations of psychopathy with life success in terms of status and wealth. More specifically, the affective, impulsive, and antisocial com- ponents of psychopathy were detrimental for status and wealth, including income and supervisor responsibility.
There might also be some arguments why psychopathy could be positively related to career success. For instance, peo- ple high in psychopathy may use extroverted charm to convey charisma or may fit well with some workplace demands in leadership positions (Babiak & Hare, 2006; Wille, De Fruyt, & De Clercq, 2013). Related to this possibility, Wille and col- leagues (2013) found a positive relationship of antisocial ten- dencies (who partially overlap with psychopathy) with hierarchical position and financial achievement. In sum, how- ever, we think that there are stronger arguments and clearer empirical findings to suggest that individuals with psycho- pathic tendencies should show less objective and subjective career success because of their impulsivity, negative affectiv- ity, and social malfunctioning.
Self-efficacy has also received increasing attention in educational research, primarily in studies of academic motivation (Pintrich&Schunk, 1995). Someone who has a high self-efficacy will be motivated to do something that he aspires to and will lead to maximum performance (Schunk, 1991). Pajares (2003) showed thatstudents’ confidence in their writing capabilities influences their writing motivation as well as various writing outcomes in school.
While the self-efficacy also have a direct impact on the unemployment rate. Other studies have also shown that people who are unemployed have alower level of self-efficacy than people who work (Wiener &Oei, 1999) because individual with alow level of self-efficacy tend to avoid activities seeking employment (Rife &Kilty, 1990). Other studies have shown that people who have high self-efficacy will be easier to overcome the condition without a job than those who have lower levels of self-efficacy (Vinokur&Schul, 2002). Significantly also indicated that higher levels of self-efficacy increase the activity of looking for work, which in turn increases the chances to get a job (Eden &Aviram, 1993). Individuals who have high levels of self-efficacy were less unemployed than individuals who have low levels of self-efficacy and high level of self-efficacy reported have more job satisfaction (Pinguartet al.,2003 ).
The general purpose of this project is to investigate the dynamic of positive trait (conscientiousness), negatif traits (narcisissm, psychopathy and machiavelism), efficacy, GPA, IQ and employment success.
Purpose of project dari studi 1 adalah untuk melakukan investigasi apakah
- Constientiousness secara langsung maupun tidak langsung akan mempengaruhi academic achievement, dan employment sukses.
- Narcisissm secara tidak langsung akan mempengaruhi academic sukses dan secara langsung akan mempengaruhi employment success.
- Machiavelism dan psychopathy secara langsung akan mempengaruhi employment success.
- Self-efficacy akan menjadi variabel moderator hubungan conscientiousness dan narcisissm dengan academic success, sementara career academic self-efficacy akan berperan dalam hubungan antara conscientiousness dan narcisissm dengan employment success.
- Intelligence akan mempengaruhi academic success dan employment success.
Purpose of project dari studi 2 adalah untuk melakukan invesigasi apakah : Ada pengaruh narcisissm terhadap rekomendasi untuk diterima/tidak diterima kerja dengan mengontrol IQ dan efficacy ?
Purpose of project dari studi 3 adalah untuk melakukan investigasi apakah : Apakah ada pengaruh kepribadian terhadap karier sukses dengan mengontrol efficacy ?
The samples in this study are students from five public universities in Indonesia. The number of samples is 750 students from the department of psychology who is completing the final task.
Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices is used to measure the level of intelligence. It contains two set of tests with 48 items. The first set consists of 12 items and the second set consists of 36 items. Items in APM are an image with black ink with white background. The larger the number, the higher the difficulty level. APM is chosen because items in APM are appropriate for adults and adolescents of above-average intelligence.
Academic self-efficacy is measured by College Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (CASES) from Owen and Froman’s (1988). The scale consists of 33 items. Participants are asked to rate the amount of confidence for the various tasks. The answer is from very little (1) to quite a lot (5). The mean score was used to calculate the composite score for the CASES.
The Short-Form Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale (Oreshnick, 1986) is used to assess CDMSE. It consists of 20 item scores with the range from 0 to 9. Total scores range from 0 to 180. High scores are indicating better CDMSE. Participants are instructed to indicate their confidence in their ability to successfully complete each career decision-making task use 20 items with “0” indicating no confidence and “9” indicating total confidence.
The Big Five personality scale (John & Srivastava, 1999) is used to assess
consciousness. The BFI scale used is the scale which has been translated into Indonesian language version (Ramdhani, 2012). BFI scale consists of 44
items, which consists of nine items to measure consciousness and the rest measuring the other traits (agreeableness, extraversion and emotional stability). Answers were given is 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (very appropriate) and
vice versa for unfavourable items.
DT3 scale (Jones and Paulhus, 2013) will be measured the level of narcissism, Machiavelism and Psychopathy. The scale consists of 27 items with total scores ranging from 1 to 5. One indicating strongly disagree and five indicating strongly agree.
The performance will be assessed by the students’ GPA (Grade Point Average) – cumulative index scores as the indicator of hard competence level.
Success or Not Succes having a Job will be assessed by online survey six months after participants graduations.
All of the instruments except BFI Scale and APM translated and adapted into Indonesian language using forward-back translation. The forward-back translation will be conducted by two independent sworn translators.
The research will be conducted in three waves. The first wave will take place in
December 2016 to March 2017. The second wave will be carried out in September 2017 until March 2018, and the third wave will be conducted in September 2018 until March 2019. Each wave consists of two stages. The first phase will be done when the participants are working on the final project. The second phase will be done six months after participants graduation. In the first phase, the participants will be measured the level of intelligence, ASE, CDMSE, personality, motivation to learn and GPA. In the second phase, participants will be asked to fill out an online survey about the success or no success to get a job.
Participants are 60 professional job interviewers. Participants are informed that they participating as an evaluator in a simulated video job interview for a management trainee position. Each Participant is asked to makes an evaluation on interviewee job competencies and provides a recommendation whether interviewee proper or not proper to be hired.
The job competencies measurement is build based on Spencer Job Competencies Dictionary (Spencer and Spencer, 1993).
Achievement orientation scale ranging from -1 to 8 (-1 = no standard of excellence for work, 0 = focused on the task, 1 = wants to do the job well, 2 = wants to meet other’s standard, 3 = creates own measure of excellence, 4 = improve performance, 5 = sets challenging goals, 6 = makes cost benefit analyzes, 7 = takes calculated entrepreunerial risks, 8 = persist on entrepreunerial effort ).
Self-confident scale consist of two aspects, self-assurance and dealing with failure. Self-assurance scale ranging from -1 to 6 (-1 = powerless, 0 = not applicable or avoid challenge, 1 = presents self confidently, 2 = presents self forcefully or self impressively, 3 = states confidence in own ability, 4 = justifies self-confident claims, 5 = volunteers for challenge, 6 = puts self in extremelly challenging situations). Dealing with failure scale ranging from -2 to 2 (-2 = blame self in global or permanent way, -1 = rationalizes or blames others for circumtances or failure, 0 = not applicable or not observed, 1 = accepts responsibility, 2 = learns from own mistakes).
Teamwork scale scale ranging from -1 to 7 (-1 = uncooperative, 0 = neutral, 1 = cooperates, 2 = shares information, 3 = expresses positive expectations, 4 = solocits inputs, 5 = empowered others, 6 = team-builds, 7 = resolves conflict).
Impact and influence scale ranging from -1 to 8 (-1 = personalized power, 0 = not applicable, 1 = states intention but takes no specific actions, 2 = takes a single action to persuade, 3 = takes a two- steps action to persuade, 4 = calculates the impact of one’s action or words, 5 = calculate a dramatic actions, 6 = takes two steps to influence, 7 = three actions or indirect influences, 8 = complex influences strategies).
Interpersonal understanding consists of two aspects, depth of understanding each other and listening and responding to others. Depth of understanding each others scale ranging from -1 to 5 (-1 = lack of understanding, 0 = not applicable, 1 = understand either emotion or content, 2 = understands both emotion and content, 3 = understand meanings, 4 = understand underlying issues, 5 = understand complex underlying issues. Listening and responding to others scale ranging from -1 to 5 (-1 = unsympathetic, 0 = not applicable or makes no attempt to listen, 1 = listens, 2 = makes self available to listen, 3 = predicts other’s responses, 4 = listens responsively, 5 = acts to help.
To rule out the possibility that the interviewee may have good competencies, intelligence (using Advances Progressive Matrices score) and GPA In addition, this experiment also controls for the sex composition of the dyad to rule out the possibility that evaluations are driven by sex differences.
This experiment also examines communication ability variable as a potential mediator of the relation between narcissism tendencies of interviewees and competencies they have using. Participants are asked to make an assessment for interviewee’s communication ability using 8 scales from 1 = very poor to 8 = excellent.
The researcher makes 60 interview recording using behavioural technique interview from 60 final year undergraduate students. The 60 students were selected from 360 final year undergraduates students who had filled Narcissism Scale. The sixtieth students are selected based on a high and low level of narcissism score. They were given instructions about the simulated job interview for a management trainee position. Their task was to “Impress the interviewer.” The interview questions, which are same for each student, reveal five basic job competencies about the experiences as a university student.
Each participant watches one of 60 interview recording randomly. Participants evaluate the interview regarding the interviewee’s performance. They are asked to make an assessment on fives basic job competencies, which are achievement orientation, interpersonal understanding, impact and influence, teamwork, self-confidence. Participants also asked to make an assessment for interviewee’s communication ability. using 8 scales from 1 = very poor to 6 = excellent.
Based on job competencies score then participants provide a recommendation from 1 to 4 whether interviewees proper or not proper to be hired (1 = very recommended, 2 = recommended, 3 = not recommended, 4 = not recommended at all).
First, will be evaluated the intercorrelations among the variables: narcissism, recommendation to be hired and job competencies.
Second, to evaluate the joint effects of narcissism and the communication ability, a moderated regression was performed on the job competencies composite. To evaluate the joint effects of narcissism and the communication ability, a moderated logistic regression was performed on recommendation to be hired composite
Third, to evaluate that possible confound, in this analysis, mixed sex dyads are coded 1 and same-sex dyads were coded 0. Gender, IQ score and GPA are then entered along with narcissism in a regression equation predicting the recommendation to be hired and job competencies evaluation.
The total sample comprised 352 undergraduate students (54% female), the age range 21 – 23 years. Mean age was 15.9 years (SD 51.8).
The correlations showed that, ……………………………………………………………………………
Table: Means, standard deviations (SD), and intercorrelations among study variables
**correlations is significant at the 0.01 level
To examine the relationship between conscientiousness, narcissim, academic self-efficacy (ASE) and GPA I conducted path analysis with AMOS 22 using three steps. In first step, I examined the relationship of conscientiousness, ASE, GPA and IQ (model excluding narcisissm). In the he second step, I examined the relationship of conscientiousness, ASE, GPA, IQ and narcisissm. In third step, I examined the relationship of conscientiousness, ASE, GPA, IQ, narcisissm and cross correlation between IQ and narcisissm (IQxNarcisissm).
To evaluate the models, I assesing the model fit through multiple indices (Byrne, 2012); the the comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker- Lewis index (TLI), with values higher than .90 indicative of an acceptable fit and values higher than .95 suggesting an excellent fit; the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) with values below .08 suggesting an acceptable fit; and the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC), with lower values indicating better fit.
Model 1 : Model excluding Narcisissm
We tested a first model (Model 1). In this model, conscientiousness and IQ predict GPA with ASE as moderator variable. Berdasarkan data, diperoleh gambaran mengenai mean pada masing-masing variabel dan standar deviasi serta interkorelasi antar variabel seperti yang terlihat pada tabel 1. Selanjutnya, dari pengolahan data dengan menggunakan path analysis, diperoleh hasil sebagaimana yang terdapat pada figure 1.
Fig. 1 Structural equation model depicting relationship between conscientiousness, academic self-efficacy, IQ and GPA
Sementara itu, hasil dari indirect dan direct effect terdapat pada tabel 2.
Table 2: Selected results of structural equation modelling – direct, indirect and total effects of interplay between variables
Untuk mengetahui apakah model tersebut tidak berbeda (fit) dengan teori yang diajukan, maka diuji beberapa index goodness of fit. Hasilnya seperti yang terlihat pada table 3.
Table : Goodness fit test
|Goodness of Fit Index||Result ofModel||Cut of Value||Criteria|
|Chi-square (X2)||2.208||X2<Table (5.99) df=2||Good|
|Significance probability||.332||≥ .05||Good|
|Tucker–Lewis index (TLI)||.996||≥ .90||Good|
|Comparative Fit Index (CFI)||.957||≥ .90||Good|
|Root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA)||.017||≤ .08||Good|
Untuk melihat arah perbedaan antara variabel conscientiousness, GPA dan academic self-efficacy, dibuatlah diagram seperti pada figure 2.
Fig. 2. Academic self-efficacy moderating the influence of conscientiousness on GPA
Model 2 : Model Including Narcisissm
Table 2: Selected results of structural equation modelling – direct, indirect and total effects of interplay between variables
Table : Goodness fit test
|Goodness of Fit Index||Result ofModel||Cut of Value||Criteria|
|Chi-square (X2)||3.271||X2<Table (5.99) df=2||Good|
|Significance probability||.514||≥ .05||Good|
|Tucker–Lewis index (TLI)||1.010||≥ .90||Good|
|Comparative Fit Index (CFI)||1.000||≥ .90||Good|
|Root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA)||0.000||≤ .08||Good|
Rekap nasional semester 2017/2018. (24 May 2017). Retrieved from forlap.dikti.go.id
Sarjana menganggur semakin banyak. (4 June 2017). Retrieved from http://www.jawapos.com/read/2017/01/30/105943/sarjana-menganggur-semakin-banyak
Brown, D. J., Cober, R. T., Kane, K., Levy, P. E., & Shalhoop, J. (2006). Proactive Personality and the Successful Job Search: A Field Investigation with College Graduates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 717 – 726.
Boswell, W. R., Zimmerman, R. D., &Swider, B. W. (2012). Employee Job Search: Toward an Understanding of Search Context and Search Objectives. Journal of Management, 38, 129 – 163.
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, 897-910.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: