ارتباط جستجو شغل و فرایند انتخاب با رضایت متعاقب
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|26547||2005||14 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||5645 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Economic Psychology, Volume 26, Issue 2, April 2005, Pages 255–268
This study examined whether how one goes about searching for and choosing a job relates to later job satisfaction. Contrary to Wilson and Schooler's [J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 60 (1991) 181] disruption hypothesis, the results suggested that people who engaged in a careful and deliberate search and choice process were more satisfied than people who used a more haphazard or intuitive approach. In addition, people who were dispositionally higher in the tendency to consider future outcomes were more likely to use a careful and deliberate approach to finding a job.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The purpose of the present study was to gain a better understanding of the job search and job choice process, and specifically to gain insight into how good job choices are made. One central finding was that searching in a focused manner for relevant information was positively associated with process and outcome satisfaction, whereas haphazard information search was negatively related to process and outcome satisfaction. Further, persons who dispositionally engage in forethought were more likely to use focused information search and rational choice when making decisions. The present study also demonstrated the usefulness of distinguishing information search from choice method. We found that satisfaction with one's decision was determined by how information was both sought and analyzed. By separating these two processes, future research can more closely distinguish how contextual factors (e.g., stress, emotion, type of choice) relate to how decisions are made. For instance, it may be that decision quality suffers under stress because of how information is sought rather than the choice method that is used. Separating search from choice may be a useful distinction for training people to improve their decision-making skills.