یک مدل یکپارچه رو به جلو از عوامل پیش بینی فردی، روانی و اجتماعی و سازمانی تعدیل بازنشستگی

This cross-sectional study examines three predictors of retirement adjustment: individual (demographic and health), psychosocial (work centrality), and organizational (conditions of workforce exit). It also examines the effect of work centrality on post-retirement activity levels. Survey data was collected from 394 retirees (aged 45–93 years). Results suggested that better psychological health, higher income, and being married predicted better retirement adjustment. Work centrality was neither related to retirement adjustment nor to post-retirement activity levels. Conditions of exit significantly predicted retirement adjustment, even after controlling for lower-level individual and psychosocial influences. Practical implications for the design of retirement planning programs and organizational exit strategies are discussed.

In the coming decades, the continued aging of the population will see an unprecedented number of older workers enter retirement and will likely fuel interest in the conditions that make for a successful retirement. Despite growing interest from policymakers, retirement planning is still a neglected area of research in the careers domain. If a person’s career is viewed as their progress through life (Savickas, 2002), then retirement becomes a critical phase in the career planning cycle. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), for example, has highlighted the criticality of an aging population to policy makers (e.g., Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1995, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2006 and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2007), prompting research into the costs of retirement in OECD countries (e.g., Gendell, 1998, Herbertsson and Orszag, 2001 and Scherer, 2002). Such research, however, has typically focused on the economic, financial or health implications of an aging and retiring demographic with relatively little regard for the psychological costs of retirement. Given that as many as one third of retirees have some difficulty adjusting to retirement (Atchley, 1976) or experience retirement as a stressful event (Bosse, Spiro, & Kressin, 1996), the psychological impact of retirement is important to consider. Clearly, promoting better adjustment to retirement can benefit individuals and society as a whole. The focus of the current study was on retirement adjustment, defined in accord with Atchley (1999) as a person’s positive retirement experiences. Research into retirement adjustment has historically focused on the individual characteristics of retirees, such as their health and income (Smith & Moen, 2004). There is, however, growing evidence that psychosocial variables have important influences on retirees’ subsequent adjustment (Hedge et al., 2006 and Taylor et al., 2008). Research indicates that attitudes towards work, such as the degree to which work is central to one’s life, are negatively related to retirement adjustment (Gallo et al., 2000 and Isaksson and Johansson, 2000). More recently, researchers have found evidence that organizational influences, such as the conditions by which retiring individuals exit the workforce, are also important for retirement adjustment (e.g., De Vaus et al., 2007 and Schmidt and Lee, 2008). Preliminary findings suggest that retirees who perceive greater personal choice in the retirement decision tend to report higher satisfaction with life, better psychological health and better adjustment in retirement (e.g., Calvo et al., 2007 and Isaksson and Johansson, 2000). Despite the growing body of research into the demographic, psychosocial, and organizational influences on retirement adjustment, some important questions remain unanswered: Do retirees’ attitudes towards work impact their post-retirement behavior? Do the conditions by which individuals exit the workforce determine how well or poorly they adjust to their life in retirement? Do these higher-level psychosocial and organizational influences add to retirement adjustment over and above the relatively well-established effects of health and income? The current study was designed to address these questions. Three influences were investigated: (1) individual influences, which describe the demographic and health status of individual retirees; (2) psychosocial influences, which describe retirees’ attitudes towards work and their behavior in retirement; and (3) organizational influences, which describe the conditions under which retirees exited the workforce. Using an Australian sample of retirees, the three influences were investigated for their independent and their incremental contribution to retirement adjustment. The effect of work centrality on retirees’ post-retirement behavior was also examined across nine life domains: work, friends, leisure activities, health, financial security, volunteering, housing, family, and partner relationships. These nine life domains were adapted from research conducted by Henrich and Herschbach (2000), who report that the domains are relevant, albeit to varying degrees, for people living in the Western world. 1.1. Individual influences: Demographic and health correlates of retirement adjustment Two well-documented variables known to influence retirement adjustment are health and income. Research has shown that retirees who report better health or higher income tend to report positive adjustment and higher life satisfaction (Quinn et al., 1990 and Taylor and Shore, 1995). Marital status has also been correlated with retirement adjustment (e.g., Kim and Moen, 2001 and Price and Joo, 2005), such that married persons tend to report better mental health outcomes and happiness than non-married persons (Bierman et al., 2006 and Diener et al., 2000). Other demographic variables that have been identified as important to retirement adjustment include age, gender, and the number of years since retirement. Research into age-related effects suggests that age is positively associated with wellbeing (e.g., Warr, 1992), but negatively associated with physical health (e.g., Moor, Zimprich, Schmitt, & Kliegel, 2006). With regard to gender differences, results are less conclusive. Whereas earlier studies have reported that women experience fewer adjustment difficulties than men ( Arnold and Feldman, 1982, Gratton and Haug, 1983 and Neuhs, 1990), subsequent research has suggested that women experience more adjustment difficulties than men ( Calasanti, 1996 and Quick and Moen, 1998), ostensibly because of women’s initially elevated levels of retirement-related distress (e.g., Midanik, Soghikian, Ransom, & Tekawa, 1995). With regard to years since retirement, researchers have found evidence that whilst retirement may initially be distressing, the majority of retirees eventually adjust with time (e.g., Butterworth et al., 2006, Gall et al., 1997 and Von Hippel et al., 2008). That is, any initial elevation in stress or anxiety eventually dissipates the longer a person has been retired. Collectively, these results suggest that demographic and health variables influence retirees’ subsequent adjustment. Although health, income, and marital status have more consistently predicted retirement adjustment (Pinquart & Schindler, 2007), the results of recent studies suggest that older male retirees who have been retired for more years tend to be better adjusted to their retirement. In the current study, we therefore expected that healthier, wealthier, or married retirees would report better retirement adjustment than less healthy, poorer, or unmarried retirees. We also expected that older, male, or longer-term retirees would report poorer retirement adjustment than younger, female, or more recent retirees. 1.2. Psychosocial influences on retirement adjustment Mein and Ellison (2006) suggest that individual differences in retirement adjustment arise, in part, because of differences in people’s attitudes towards work. This idea is explored further using role theory and work centrality as a framework for understanding the retirement experience. 1.2.1. Role theory According to role theory (e.g., George, 1993), individuals occupy a number of roles, each critical to the self concept and personal identity (Moen et al., 2000 and Petters and Asuquo, 2008). Retirement, which typically involves exiting the workforce and hence relinquishing the work role, can represent a phase of “rolelessness” (Richardson & Kilty, 1991). For many individuals, retirement involves the loss of a valued personal identity and source of role-related activities (Hopkins, Roster, & Wood, 2006) and this role loss can create difficulties with adjustment (Parsons, 1942). Indeed, researchers have found evidence that role loss predicts decreased life satisfaction (Fry, 1992) and is linked to poorer adjustment (van Solinge & Henkens, 2008) as well as elevated levels of stress, depression, and anxiety (Adams et al., 2002, Moen et al., 1992 and Thoits, 1992). 1.2.2. Work centrality Work centrality may also factor into the psychological experience of retirement. Defined as the extent to which work is of primary importance compared with all other life roles (Kanungo, 1982 and Parboteeah and Cullen, 2003), work centrality provides an indication of an individual’s affective commitment to his or her work (Schmidt & Lee, 2008). To the extent that people with higher work centrality are more committed to their work role, they may experience greater difficulty adjusting to retirement than those with lower work centrality. In line with role theory and work centrality research, we therefore expected that retirees with higher work centrality would report poorer retirement adjustment than retirees with lower work centrality. 1.3. Psychosocial influences on post-retirement behavior This raises an important question: If the centrality of the work role has important psychological consequences for retirees, does it also have important behavioral consequences? Stryker, 1968 and Stryker, 1977 argues that the strength of an individual’s commitment to an identity has the power to guide his or her subsequent behavior. Ashforth (2001) also contends that an individual’s involvement with a specific role affects his or her behaviors and decisions. In the current study, work centrality was expected to influence retirees’ activity levels. Specifically, retirees with higher work centrality were expected to be more active than retirees with lower work centrality. This may be because higher activity levels help to distract retirees from the adverse psychological impact of their lost work role or because the pursuit of non-work roles (e.g., friend, family member, volunteer) provides a renewed sense of purpose. Retirees’ activity levels were operationalized as the amount of time purportedly spent in each of nine life domains (for a full description, see Henrich & Herschbach, 2000). This enabled investigation of the impact of work centrality on retirees’ participation in specific role-related activities in addition to their overall activity levels, summed across the nine life domains. 1.4. Organizational influences on retirement adjustment Unfortunately, many people do not have personal choice in the decision to retire; retirement is often the result of organizational imperatives or extenuating personal circumstances (e.g., De Vries, 1979 and Szinovacz and Davey, 2005). Researchers have only just begun to explore the conditions of workforce exit and how these conditions might alter an individual’s retirement experiences (e.g., Fouquereau et al., 2005 and Shacklock, 2005). Greater understanding of the organizational influences that predict retirement adjustment is needed in order to advance current theory and practice, particularly in the context of organizational planning for retirement. Drawing upon earlier research by Wells and colleagues (Wells, deVaus, Kendig, Quine, & Petralia, 2006), five variables relevant to workforce exit were examined: preparedness for retirement, ease or difficulty of the retirement decision, a gradual versus abrupt entry into retirement, perceived choice in the decision to retire, and perceived say in the timing of retirement. 1.4.1. Perceived preparedness and difficulty of the retirement decision Planning for retirement has been associated with lower anxiety, better adjustment and higher satisfaction than not planning (Feldman, 1994, Glamser and De Jong, 1975 and Glass and Flynn, 2000). If effective, retirement planning should enhance an individual’s sense of preparedness for the retirement event (Taylor & Shore, 1995) and make for an easier retirement decision if it reduces any anticipatory anxiety associated with the retirement event. If, as research suggests, planning predicts better retirement adjustment, then so too should preparedness and an easier retirement decision. 1.4.2. Gradual versus abrupt entry into retirement As de Vries (1979) suggests, the initial shock of retirement may be eased if retirement occurs more gradually (i.e., a progressive withdrawal rather than an abrupt exit from the workforce; de Vaus et al., 2007). Ostensibly, a more gradual retirement would provide the departing individual with more time to adjust to the changes in roles and lifestyle that typically accompany retirement. In the current study, we therefore expected that a more gradual exit from the workforce would predict better retirement adjustment than a more abrupt exit. 1.4.3. Personal choice and having a say in the timing of retirement Personal choice and perceived control in the decision to retire have been linked to better adjustment (Calvo et al., 2007, De Vaus et al., 2007 and Rosenman and Warburton, 1995). For example, Quine and colleagues (Quine, Wells, de Vaus, & Kendig, 2007) have found evidence that retirees who perceived greater choice in their retirement decision tended to report higher adjustment and life satisfaction when assessed 12 and 36 months after retirement. Furthermore, perceived lack of choice (i.e., involuntary or forced retirement) has been associated with more negative experiences, including poorer adjustment ( Reitzes and Mutran, 2004 and Van Solinge and Henkens, 2008), poorer health and wellbeing ( Ebersole and Hess, 1998, Gallo et al., 2000 and Szinovacz and Davey, 2005) and lower satisfaction ( Botti & Iyengar, 2004). A similar relationship has also been observed between perceived say in the timing of retirement and subsequent adjustment (e.g., Hershey et al., 2002 and Zimmerman et al., 2000). In the current study, we expected that perceived personal choice in the decision to retire and perceived say in the timing of retirement would both predict positive retirement adjustment. 1.5. An integrated model of individual, psychosocial, and organizational influences As previously mentioned, research into the individual, psychosocial, and organizational influences on retirement adjustment has typically focused on only one or two levels of influence. Although the results of such research provide information about the independent contribution of each level of influence to retirement adjustment, they do not provide information about the added benefits of higher-level psychosocial and organizational influences over and above lower-level individual influences. In order to determine the incremental contribution of higher-level influences to retirement adjustment, an integrated model was tested with predictors at three levels: (1) low-level individual influences (age, gender, income, marital status, years retired, and health); (2) mid-level psychosocial influences (work centrality); and (3) high-level organizational influences (conditions of workforce exit). Higher-level influences, by virtue of being more changeable, were expected to have incremental predictive value over more stable lower-level influences. 1.6. The current study Formally stated, the hypotheses for the current study were as follows: Hypothesis 1a (Individual Influences): Better psychological health, higher income, or being married will predict better retirement adjustment, as will being older, male, or retired for more years. In contrast, poorer psychological health, lower income, or not being married will predict poorer retirement adjustment, as will being younger, female, or retired for fewer years. Hypothesis 1b (Psychosocial Influences): Higher work centrality will predict poorer retirement adjustment than lower work centrality. Hypothesis 1c (Organizational Influences): More favorable conditions of exit from the workforce (i.e., retirees’ perceptions of preparedness, an easier decision to retire, a more gradual retirement, personal choice in the decision to retire, and say in the timing of retirement) will predict better retirement adjustment. Hypothesis 1d (Integrated Model): Higher-level psychosocial or organizational influences will add to the prediction of retirement adjustment over and above lower-level individual influences. Hypothesis 2: Retirees with higher work centrality will spend more time in the nine life domains measured than retirees with lower work centrality.

The current study highlights the importance of adopting a more holistic approach to retirement research, theory, and practice. Rather than solely focusing on the demographic and health factors important for retirees’ adjustment, researchers and practitioners need to consider the influence of the broader organizational context in retirement discussions. Although further investigation of the psychosocial influences of retirement adjustment and behavior is needed, it is clear from the current study that both the individual and the organization play an integral role in ensuring a positive retirement experience.