The role of time perspective in social cognitive career theory of interests

Abstract

Although social cognitive career theory has been tested in relation to Holland’s RIASEC types, few studies have examined the role of time perspective across RIASEC themes. Four hundred and thirty-five students participated in this study. Data were collected on the time perspective dimensions, learning experiences, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and interests across each of the RIASEC areas identified by Holland. The findings, besides a substantial confirmation of SCCT foreknown causal relationships, indicated a significant role of present-hedonistic and future temporal perspectives in Investigative and Social areas. The results evidenced the role of time perspective among persons’ inputs influencing self-efficacy and outcome expectations in the social cognitive framework of interests’ formation.

Keywords

Social cognitive career theory vocational interest time perspective learning experiences self-efficacy

The primary purpose of this research is to advance the empirical literature on social cognitive career theory (SCCT) (Lent et al., 1994) including time perspective among persons’ inputs. The main focus of this study is on how the Zimbardo time perspective (Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999) constructs are related to learning experiences, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and interests in the overall SCCT model. Our proposed models address the effects of time perspective related to SCCT constructs across Holland’s (1997) RIASEC (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional) fields of interest.

Time perspective can be defined as “the manner in which individuals, and cultures, partition the flow of human experience into distinct temporal categories of past, present and future” (Zimbardo et al., 1997: 1008). Wallace and Rabin (1960) and Fraisse (1963) summarized almost a century of work on time in psychology. Nurmi (1991) made a wide review of adolescents’ future orientation in terms of motivation, planning, and evaluation.

During adolescence, the subjective awareness of personal past, present, and future may have implications for several psychosocial outcomes related to identity, motivation, coping, interpersonal interactions, and risk behaviors (Laghi et al., 2012). Adolescents seem to be more responsive to experiences that produce immediate satisfaction, but have lesser reward value over the long term. Their behavior contrasts with that of peers who endorsed a future time perspective that focused on a cost/benefit analysis framed by consideration of abstract options and contingencies (Laghi et al., 2013).

Identity formation during adolescence is influenced by exploration and commitment concerning future-oriented interests (Bosma, 1985; Marcia, 1980). Adolescents anticipate future events and outcomes, like the ones linked to career, giving them personal meanings and relating personal standards to these events (Bandura, 1986; Gainor, 2006; Laghi et al., 2011). Consequently, interests and motives have a reference to future events (Nuttin, 1985). Time perspective has been empirically related to locus of control and theory of attribution (Platt and Eisenman, 1968; Thayer et al., 1975; Wolf and Savickas, 1985), achievement motivation (Epley and Ricks, 1963; Heckhausen, 1967; Nisan, 1972; Raynor and Rubin, 1971; Shell and Husman, 2001), delay of gratification (Bembenutty and Karabenick, 2004; Klineberg, 1968), study persistence (De Voider and Lens, 1982), and career decision-making (Savickas et al., 1984). Individual time perspective development is embedded in socio-cultural context (Laghi et al., 2013; Le Shan, 1952), showing that lower class views the future as being uncertain (Phan, 2009).

Time perspective is a nonconscious process used for encoding, storing and recalling events, as well as in forming expectations, goals and imaginative views (D’Alessio et al., 2003). The representation of the present is strictly related to the construction of the past and to the anticipation of the future. Some people are influenced in their decision-making by analogous situations that have occurred in the past, recalling experienced costs and benefits; others are mainly driven by outcome expectations (Laghi et al., 2009a, 2009b, 2012). Zimbardo and Boyd (1999) subdivided past, present, and future orientation into five dimensions: past-positive, past-negative, present-fatalistic, present-hedonistic, and future. Past-positive is marked by a warm, sentimental and positive view of one’s past, giving rise to nostalgic feelings. Past-negative reflects a pessimistic, negative or aversive attitude towards the past and possibly the experience of traumatic life events not yet resolved. Present-fatalistic is characterized by a hopeless and helpless attitude towards the future and belief that exterior forces (others, luck, God) determine one’s fate leaving no chance to change events. Present-hedonistic is associated with the desire for spontaneous and immediate pleasure with slight regard to risk or concern for future consequences and the tendency to avoid engagement and effort. Future reflects planning for, and achievement of, future goals and is characterized by perseverance and a marked attention to responsibility and by a reward dependence that occurs as a result of achieving specific, long-term goals, avoiding distractions which divert attention from what are considered one’s main goals.

Super’s (1974) model of adolescent career maturity emphasizes the role of time perspective in the development of concrete career choices and involvement in the form of planful attitudes toward the future (Crites, 1978; Super, 1983). Adolescents must balance their own personal Time perspective and a social time perspective expressed by a synthesis of contextual proscriptions, values, and deadlines. Personal learning experiences influence these first steps of life planning. Engagement in a new task directs the student to find similar tasks among past learning experiences (Eccles, 2005). If successful learning experiences can be found, self-efficacy is reinforced, thus offering cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies which enhance good performance possibilities.

Developmental transformations and increasing cognitive abilities to represent and anticipate events allow the direct assessment of self-efficacy. Adolescents’ self-efficacy is influenced by experiences with caregivers in early childhood. The quality of childhood memories has an important impact on the formation of self-efficacy-related internal representations. These representations not only reflect past experiences but may be considered as a changing reconstruction of what happened in the past, based on current life circumstances and in connection with the affective vicissitudes that are typical of the adolescent age. Autobiographical memories are affected by the adolescents’ current circumstances and current view of themselves (Henry et al., 1994). Thanks to his/her new abilities of hypothetical deductive thinking, an adolescent can anticipate possibilities and life scenarios that do not exist irrespective of his/her practical experience, so he/she can work out his/her intentions and future projects (Laghi et al., 2009a). Self-efficacy and outcome expectations can hence be analyzed by means of the three time dimensions of past, present, and future.

The present study explores the degree to which the data fit SCCT’s interest model for each RIASEC type, where Zimbardo time perspective’s dimensions (past-positive = PP, past-negative = PN, present-hedonistic = PH, present-fatalistic = PF, future = F) were considered as factors directly influencing one’s learning experiences (PA = performance accomplishments, VL = vicarious learning, VP = verbal persuasion, PEA = physiological/emotional arousal) and self-efficacy (SE) and hence indirectly influencing outcome expectations ( = OE) and interests ( = INT) (see Figure 1 for a graphical representation of the model). Time perspective, considered as a person’s input, is hypothesized to influence learning experiences across all Holland themes, with no relevant differences based on the area of interest since the casual paths reflect the way through which time perspectives relates to experiences in any field of interest. The effects are expected to be positively significant for past time perspectives (positive and negative), since past time orientations include by definition a strong consideration of experiences (Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999). Fatalistic attitude, for its external locus of control, is expected to negatively influence those learning experiences which enhance self-efficacy (personal accomplishments, vicarious learning, verbal persuasion) while strengthening physiological/emotional arousal. Present-hedonistic and future time perspectives, on the contrary, should have the opposite effect, even if less pronounced since poorly rooted in the past experiences. Furthermore we hypothesize a direct effect of time perspective dimensions on self-efficacy beliefs. This hypothesis is based on Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy theory, which advances a tripartite temporal influence on behavioral self-regulation as generated by efficacy beliefs grounded in past experiences, current appraisals, and reflections on future options. Past time perspectives (positive and negative) are expected to have a negative direct influence on vocational self-efficacy, since they both denote an attention addressed toward the past with little space for vocational engagement. Present-fatalistic is expected to directly lower self-efficacy for the negative influence that fatalism plays on personal resources and efficacy beliefs. Present-hedonistic should be the most significant direct predictor of self-efficacy for its optimistic attitude. Future time perspective is expected to directly positively influence self-efficacy, even if less than present-hedonistic and only for those Holland themes, like Enterprising and Investigative, with a stronger correlation with sense of responsibility and long-term investment.

Figure 1.

Causal model of vocational interests with time perspective.

On the whole, even if no literature can be addressed to hypothesize the effect of time perspective indicators on socio-cognitive variables, as an exploratory analyses, we can expect that interests are mainly influenced by future time perspective. This hypothesis can be justified considering future’s characteristics of responsibility, perseverance, and achievement of long-term goals. This hypothesis should be verified especially for those Holland areas where Future perspective plays a more significant role, like Enterprising and Investigative ones. The optimistic and well-being attitude of present-hedonistic is expected to be a factor that can contribute to interests’ formation especially for Social and Artistic areas, while present-fatalistic attitude is expected to weaken interests across all Holland domains. Past time perspectives, both positive and negative, are expected to weakly influence interests’ formation across all Holland domains, since past orientation is scarcely linked to career planning independently from the field of application.

According to Betz and Hackett (1981), we expect gender differences in vocational socio-cognitive variables, since SCCT models (Lent et al., 1994; Betz, 2006, 2007, 2008) consider gender as a person input affecting individual exposure to learning experiences (Lindley and Borgen, 2002; Williams and Subich, 2006; Tokar et al., 2007). Males traditionally report higher values on Realistic and Investigative socio-cognitive variables, while Social area is traditionally feminine. Gender differences are expected to emerge when considering time perspective as a person’s input affecting learning experiences and self-efficacy, since the gendered nature of time perspective (Keough et al., 1999) will influence the way through which Learning experience are taken in account in the process of self-efficacy formation.

Methods

Participants

The target sample consisted of 435 Italian adolescents aged 17 to 19 years attending high schools in the Center of Italy (Lazio). The schools were selected on the basis of their willingness to participate in the study (N = 6). They were from urban, suburban, and more rural areas within a small geographic radius, reflecting the full socio-economic spectrum of the region. In total, 198 were males (46%) and 237 were females (54%). The mean age was 17.56 years (SD = 0.7). The subjects were attending their final year of different high schools. About 25% were enrolled in science-focused schools, 17% in classical education schools, 25% in industrial schools, 17% in liberal arts-focused schools, 16% in teacher-training schools.

Procedure

Participation was obtained through an informed consent procedure asking for active consent from students. Questionnaires were administered in the classroom during lesson time at the end of the first semester. They took approximately 30 min to complete. Vocational experts introduced the questionnaires, giving instructions on their compilation, explaining that they were voluntary and responses were anonymous and confidential. Examples were given to clarify differences among social-cognitive constructs that were operationalized in a single instrument. Experts were at the students’ disposal during the questionnaires’ administration to answer questions and give explanation. All students responded to the same questionnaire packet.

Measures

Demographics

An Identifying Information Form was used to collect demographic information such as age, gender, and type of school.

Time perspective

This was measured using the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI) (Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999) in its Italian validated version for adolescents (Laghi et al., 2013). This instrument consists of 25 items using a 5-point Likert-type scale. The ZTPI is a multidimensional scale organized into three temporal frames: past, present, and future. Both past and present temporal frames are divided according to the related negative or positive attitude. Five subscales are thus obtained: past-positive, past-negative, present-fatalistic, present-hedonistic, and future. The Italian short version of the scale has good psychometric properties (internal reliability of the ZTPI ranges from 0.70 to 0.80) and a convergent validity with different measures of attachment security and well-being (Laghi et al., 2013). Internal reliability of the ZTPI ranges from 0.74 to 0.84. The alpha coefficients for this study are reported in Table 1.

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations, and internal consistency estimates for observed variables.

Variable	M	SD	Cronbach’s alpha	Variable	M	SD	Cronbach’s alpha
Time perspective				Self-efficacy
Past-positive	3.29	0.79	0.81	Realistic	1.60	1.46	0.79
Past-negative	2.25	0.72	0.74	Investigative	2.55	2.21	0.89
Present-fatalist	2.24	0.60	0.73	Artistic	3.11	2.16	0.80
Present-hedonistic	3.29	0.61	0.70	Social	2.81	2.24	0.85
Future	3.35	0.72	0.77	Enterprising	3.29	2.33	0.87
Performance accomplishments				Conventional	1.96	2.16	0.90
Realistic	3.10	1.09	0.76	Outcome expectations
Investigative	3.32	1.00	0.72	Realistic	2.41	2.15	0.88
Artistic	2.94	1.04	0.72	Investigative	2.69	2.37	0.92
Social	3.96	0.94	0.72	Artistic	2.97	2.10	0.82
Enterprising	3.10	0.97	0.75	Social	3.04	2.32	0.86
Conventional	3.18	1.01	0.72	Enterprising	3.44	2.40	0.89
Vicarious learning				Conventional	2.24	2.35	0.92
Realistic	3.71	1.10	0.78	Interests
Investigative	2.84	0.99	0.72	Realistic	1.52	1.51	0.82
Artistic	3.07	0.94	0.72	Investigative	2.33	2.19	0.89
Social	3.08	1.03	0.74	Artistic	3.01	2.16	0.80
Enterprising	2.91	0.94	0.72	Social	2.69	2.23	0.86
Conventional	3.28	1.03	0.72	Enterprising	3.12	2.35	0.88
Verbal persuasion				Conventional	1.97	2.18	0.91
Realistic	2.65	1.02	0.74
Investigative	2.86	1.03	0.74
Artistic	2.48	1.02	0.72
Social	3.50	1.00	0.73
Enterprising	2.69	0.97	0.72
Conventional	2.38	0.73	0.71
Physiological/emotional arousal
Realistic	2.57	0.96	0.72
Investigative	2.55	0.90	0.72
Artistic	2.51	0.89	0.72
Social	2.54	0.85	0.72
Enterprising	2.45	0.82	0.72
Conventional	2.21	0.91	0.73

Learning experiences

These were measured with the Learning Experiences Questionnaire (LEQ) (Schaub, 2004) in its validated Italian version (Laghi et al., 2007), consisting of 120 items investigating Bandura’s (1986) four sources of self-efficacy information (i.e. performance accomplishments, vicarious learning, verbal persuasion, and physiological/emotional arousal) for each of Holland’s (1997) RIASEC themes. Each of the four types of learning experiences was assessed with five items, using a 6-point Likert-type scale. Reliability and validity of the instrument in its Italian version have been shown to be satisfactory. The instrument has good psychometric properties (internal reliability ranges from 0.71 to 0.76). Divergent validity estimates indicated that scores were not related to age, gender, and type of school, whereas convergent validity was supported via correlations with different measures of self-efficacy (Laghi et al., 2007). The alpha coefficients for this study are reported in Table 1.

Self-efficacy, outcome expectations, interests

These were all measured with an instrument created and validated in its Italian version by Lent et al. (2003) consisting of a set of 42 occupational titles, 7 titles for each of Holland’s domains. For each occupation, participants were asked to express their self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and interests using a 10-point scale. Operationalizing different constructs in a single instrument, with identical items and response options, with the risk of a high level of overlap in the measures, can yield large effects of common method bias accounting for much of the relations among these variables. Following Lent and Brown’s recommendations (2006), we ensured that scale instructions and verbal anchors properly oriented participants to the construct at hand. Examples were given before questionnaires’ administration to clarify differences among constructs referred to the same occupational title. The Italian version of the instrument has good psychometric properties and many studies have found this scale to be a valid and reliable measure in Italian context (Lent et al., 2003). Lent et al. reported alpha coefficients ranging from 0.82 (Artistic theme) to 0.94 (Investigative theme) for the self-efficacy scales; and from 0.91 (Investigative theme) to 0.94 (Conventional theme) for the outcome expectation scales and found interrelationships among self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and interests that were consistent with SCCT.

Data analysis

Preliminary analysis

As a preliminary analysis, we checked the skewness and kurtosis of all variables. Overall, all variables seemed to conform to the normal distribution.

Gender differences in structural models were tested running multi-group analysis (males vs. females) for each RIASEC theme. Those RIASEC areas where fit significantly improves considering gendered groups were subsequently analysed as separated structural models for males and females.

Path analysis

All path models were analyzed with LISREL 8.30 (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1999), using maximum likelihood estimation procedures. For each tested model we reported χ², as an absolute fit index (good fit between zero value and two times the degrees of freedom). We also reported two more incremental fit indexes—the non-normed fit index (NNFI) and the comparative fit index (CFI)—and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Higher CFI and NNFI values (in the range from 0.97 to 1.00 for a good fit) and lower RMSEA values (in the range from 0.00 to 0.05 for a good fit) are assumed to evaluate model fit (Schermelleh-Engell et al., 2003). There were two missing values (belonging to different participants and different variables), that have been substituted with sample means.

Results

Descriptive statistics and preliminary analysis

The internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alpha) were satisfactory for each subscale as shown in Table 1 (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients range from 0.70 to 0.92). Data in Table 1 for men and women participants can be obtained directly from the first author.

Multigroup analysis (males vs. females) for each RIASEC theme were run to compare data fit as referred to gendered separate groups (50 degrees of freedom) and to a whole group formed by males and females (86 degrees of freedom). χ² differences thus obtained were compared to values corresponding to the fit improvement due to the difference of degrees of freedom (36 degrees of freedom). Thresholds for significance were chosen in correspondence with p = 0.01, Δχ²= 58.62, and p = 0.05, Δχ²= 51.00. Realistic area reported the most significant gender difference, Δχ²= 63.77; p < 0.001; followed by Enterprising, Δχ²= 55.69; p < 0.01, and Artistic, Δχ²= 54.81; p < 0.01 areas; no significant gender differences were found for Social, Δχ²= 47.83; p = 0.09, Conventional, Δχ²= 47.22; p = 0.10, and Investigative themes, Δχ²= 44.29; p = 0.16. Based on these preliminary findings subsequent analysis were run differentiating by gender in Realistic, Artistic, and Enterprising, while considering only one group of participants for Investigative, Social, and Conventional areas.

Path analysis. Path coefficients estimates are shown in Table 2. Last rows contain fit indexes whose values show a good fit for each of the nine tested models (Schermelleh-Engell et al., 2003).

Table 2.

Path coefficients and fit statics for nine RIASEC models.

	Realistic		Investigative	Artistic		Social	Enterprising		Conventional
Path	Females	Males	Females + Males	Females	Males	Females + Males	Females	Males	Females + Males
1	0.10*	0.14*	0.10*	0.10*	0.03	0.10*	0.03	−0.01	0.12*
2	0.30**	0.20**	0.23**	0.23**	0.10*	0.23**	0.21**	0.16**	0.15**
3	0.10*	0.16**	0.13*	0.26**	0.02	0.22**	0.13*	0.10*	0.10*
4	0.11*	0.13*	0.18**	0.12*	0.05	0.12*	0.21**	0.23**	0.12*
5	−0.09	−0.08	−0.09	0.00	−0.04	−0.07	−0.06	−0.01	−0.06
6	0.14*	0.04	−0.04	0.06	0.18**	0.02	−0.01	−0.03	−0.01
7	0.05	0.02	0.03	0.07	0.18**	0.07	0.01	0.07	0.05
8	0.12*	0.11*	0.03	0.06	0.19**	0.02	0.03	0.03	0.01
9	0.15**	0.16**	0.17**	0.17**	0.18**	0.20**	0.17**	0.19**	0.14*
10	0.17**	−0.11*	−0.03	0.00	0.00	0.02	0.10*	−0.02	−0.06
11	−0.22**	−0.06	−0.09	−0.17**	−0.03	−0.17**	−0.18**	−0.11*	−0.09
12	−0.15**	−0.07	−0.08	−0.20**	0.01	−0.12*	0.06	−0.10*	−0.07
13	−0.11*	0.03	−0.13*	−0.19**	0.05	−0.07	−0.08	−0.15**	0.04
14	0.10*	0.19**	0.12*	0.21**	0.12**	0.23**	0.22**	0.21**	0.11*
15	−0.09	0.00	−0.04	0.00	−0.01	−0.04	−0.01	0.00	−0.02
16	0.18**	0.02	0.05	0.06	0.15**	0.33**	0.24**	0.21**	0.01
17	0.07	0.07	0.02	0.03	0.10*	0.16**	−0.01	0.19**	0.10*
18	0.17**	0.10*	0.03	0.00	0.30**	0.23**	0.10*	0.25**	0.06
19	0.03	0.07	0.03	0.03	0.03	−0.12*	−0.09	−0.05	0.03
20	0.13*	0.14*	0.15**	0.11*	0.10*	0.16**	0.06	0.04	0.04
21	−0.08	−0.01	0.29**	−0.01	0.26**	0.30**	0.07	0.02	0.19**
22	−0.15**	0.15**	0.00	−0.10*	0.15**	0.05	−0.10*	0.10*	0.13*
23	−0.12*	0.10*	0.21**	0.00	0.13*	0.19**	0.05	0.02	0.08
24	0.06	−0.08	−0.01	−0.04	0.03	−0.04	−0.07	0.08	−0.09
25	0.07	−0.03	0.07	−0.02	−0.06	0.05	0.00	0.22**	0.00
26	0.30**	0.19**	0.19**	0.23**	0.20**	0.24**	0.10*	0.27**	0.21**
27	−0.03	0.02	−0.10*	−0.11*	−0.10*	−0.10*	−0.10*	−0.01	−0.12*
28	0.03	0.09	0.05	−0.09	0.03	−0.02	0.01	0.06	0.01
29	−0.02	0.01	0.05	0.02	0.02	−0.02	0.06	0.09	−0.03
30	−0.04	0.06	0.21**	0.38**	0.35**	0.24**	0.36**	0.21**	0.18**
31	0.05	0.10*	0.05	0.23**	0.06	0.17**	0.02	−0.09	0.13*
32	−0.02	−0.01	−0.14*	−0.10*	−0.11*	−0.01	−0.10*	−0.13*	−0.14*
33	0.07	0.14*	0.03	0.05	0.04	0.07	0.02	0.07	0.01
34	0.40**	0.48**	0.74**	0.71**	0.84**	0.81**	0.82**	0.89**	0.81**
35	0.22**	0.15**	0.42**	0.37**	0.40**	0.25**	0.30**	0.57**	0.38**
36	0.46**	0.71**	0.48**	0.54**	0.54**	0.72**	0.58**	0.39**	0.55**
χ ²	7.62	9.04	16.46	25.78	12.09	25.41	26.41	14.95	16.37
NNFI	1.08	1.08	1.01	1.00	1.03	1.00	0.99	1.03	1.01
CFI	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
RMSEA	0.00	0.00	.01	0.01	0.00	0.01	0.02	0.00	0.01
N	237	198	435	237	198	435	237	198	435

Degrees of freedom = 25, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

Effects of time perspective on learning experiences

As shown in Table 2, both past-positive and past-negative temporal perspectives positively influence in a significant way most of the learning experiences dimensions (paths 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9). Present-fatalistic has mainly a negative influence on those learning experiences which enhance self-efficacy (performance accomplishments, vicarious learning, verbal persuasion) (paths 11, 12, 13), while it is a significant positive predictor of physiological and emotional arousal (path 14). Present-hedonistic shows generally a little influence on Learning experiences (paths 16, 17, 18, 19), except for the Social area and—only for males—in the Artistic and Enterprising areas where it acts as a significant reinforcement of those learning experiences which enhance self-efficacy (paths 16, 17, 18). A significant positive influence of future was found on performance accomplishments (path 21) in Investigative, Social, and Conventional areas and—only for males—in the Artistic one. Females, contrary to males, reported a significant negative influence of future on vicarious learning (path 22) and verbal persuasion (path 23) in Realistic, Artistic, and Enterprising areas.

Effects of time perspective on self-efficacy

As shown in Table 3, past-positive has no significant effect on self-efficacy, while past-negative significantly influences realistic self-efficacy: females are reinforced in their realistic self-efficacy by past-negative, while males are weakened. Present-fatalistic resulted to have a significant negative influence on self-efficacy in Investigative and Social areas and, only for females, in the Realistic and Artistic ones. Present-hedonistic resulted to be the most significant time perspective indicator positively influencing self-efficacy. Only conventional self-efficacy showed not to be significantly influenced by present-hedonistic. Future resulted to significantly influence self-efficacy in Investigative and Social areas and—only for males—in the Enterprising one.

Table 3.

Summary of effects of time perspective on self-efficacy, outcome expectations and interests.

Path	Realistic		Investigative	Artistic		Social	Enterprising		Conventional
Path	Females	Males	Females + Males	Females	Males	Females + Males	Females	Males	Females + Males
From Past-positive to Self-efficacy
Direct effect	−0.09	−0.08	−0.09	0.00	−0.04	−0.07	−0.06	−0.01	−0.06
Indirect effect (total)	0.03	0.05	0.03	0.09	0.01	0.07	0.03	0.00	0.03
Total effect	−0.06	−0.03	−0.06	0.09	−0.03	0.00	−0.03	−0.01	−0.03
From Past-negative to self-efficacy
Direct effect	0.17**	−0.11*	−0.03	0.00	0.00	0.02	0.10*	−0.02	−0.06
Indirect effect (total)	0.04	0.01	−0.02	0.01	0.09	0.01	−0.01	−0.02	−0.02
Total effect	0.21**	−0.10*	−0.05	0.01	0.09	0.03	0.09	−0.04	−0.08
From present-fatalistic to self-efficacy
Direct effect	−0.09	0.00	−0.04	0.00	−0.01	−0.04	−0.01	0.00	−0.02
Indirect effect (total)	−0.07	−0.02	−0.07	−0.11*	0.00	−0.06	−0.07	−0.09	−0.03
Total effect	−0.16**	−0.02	−0.11*	−0.11*	−0.01	−0.10*	−0.08	−0.09	−0.05
From present-hedonistic to self-efficacy
Direct effect	0.13*	0.14*	0.15*	0.11*	0.10*	0.16**	0.06	0.04	0.04
Indirect effect (total)	0.05	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.13*	0.13*	0.07	0.13*	0.01
Total effect	0.18**	0.16**	0.16**	0.12*	0.23**	0.29**	0.13*	0.17**	0.05
From future to self-efficacy
Direct effect	0.07	−0.03	0.07	−0.02	−0.06	0.05	0.00	0.22**	0.00
Indirect effect (total)	−0.02	0.02	0.10*	0.01	0.10*	0.12*	0.03	0.01	0.07
Total effect	0.05	−0.01	0.17**	−0.01	0.04	0.17**	0.03	0.23**	0.07
From past-positive to outcome expectations
Total (indirect) effect	−0.02	0.03	−0.03	0.12*	−0.02	0.03	−0.01	0.01	−0.03
From past-negative to outcome expectations
Total (indirect) effect	0.08	−0.04	−0.03	0.00	0.06	0.02	0.08	−0.03	−0.06
From present-fatalistic to outcome expectations
Total (indirect) effect	−0.05	0.02	−0.08	−0.10*	0.00	−0.06	−0.04	−0.06	−0.02
From present-hedonistic to outcome expectations
Total (indirect) effect	0.08	0.10*	0.12*	0.08	0.20**	0.23**	0.08	0.14*	0.04
From future to outcome expectations
Total (indirect) effect	0.02	−0.01	0.11*	−0.01	0.02	0.13*	0.01	0.21**	0.04
From past-positive to interests
Total (indirect) effect	−0.02	0.01	−0.04	0.10*	−0.02	0.02	−0.01	0.00	−0.03
From past-negative to interests
Total (indirect) effect	0.08	−0.05	−0.04	0.01	0.07	0.02	0.07	−0.04	−0.07
From present-fatalistic to interests
Total (indirect) effect	−0.06	0.01	−0.08	−0.10*	0.00	−0.06	−0.05	−0.08	−0.03
From present-hedonistic to interests
Total (indirect) effect	0.07	0.09	0.13*	0.09	0.20**	0.24**	0.09	0.15*	0.04
From future to interests
Total (indirect) effect	0.02	−0.01	0.12*	−0.01	0.03	0.14*	0.02	0.21**	0.05

p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

Effects of time perspective on outcome expectations

As reported in Table 3, past time perspectives, both positive and negative, and present-fatalistic do not show significant influences on outcome expectations, with the only exception for females in the Artistic field, where past-positive time perspective significantly enhances outcome expectations and present-fatalistic weakens them. Present-hedonistic and future are significant predictors of outcome expectations in Social and Investigative themes and, only for males, in Enterprising one. Present-hedonistic shows also a significant role for Artistic and Artistic masculine outcome expectations.

Effects of time perspective on interests

Time perspective indirectly influences interests as a combination of its effects on self-efficacy and on outcome expectations. It has thus been found (Table 3) that feminine artistic interests are significantly influenced by past-positive in a positive way and by present-fatalistic in a negative way. No other significant effect emerged on interests by past-positive, past-negative, and present-fatalistic perspectives. Present-hedonistic and future are significant positive predictors of Investigative and Social interests, and only for males significant positive influences resulted exerted in the Artistic area by present-hedonistic and in the Enterprising one by present-hedonistic and future.

Robust significant causal paths resulted between self-efficacy and outcome expectations (path 34); self-efficacy and interests (path 35); outcome expectations and interests (path 36). Performance accomplishments resulted to be the main learning experiences positively influencing self-efficacy (path 26) and negatively directly influencing outcome expectations (path 27). These path coefficients (26, 27) are significant for most of the Holland’s areas. On the contrary, paths 28 and 29, linking vicarious learning to self-efficacy and outcome expectations, resulted to be nonsignificant across all Holland's areas. Verbal persuasion significantly influences self-efficacy (path 30), with the only exception of the Realistic area. Its positive direct effect on outcome expectations (path 31) resulted to be significant for Social and Conventional areas, and, only for males, in the Realistic one; while only for females in the Artistic area. Physiological/emotional arousal significantly influences self-efficacy (path 32) with the exception of Realistic and Social areas. A significant positive direct effect of physiological/emotional arousal has been found on outcome expectations (path 33) only for females in the Realistic area.

Conclusions and implications

SCCT’s hypotheses (Lent et al., 1994) found substantial verification in the analyzed sample, both for the core of social-cognitive career theory and for the role of learning experiences as predictors of self-efficacy and outcome expectations. Several significant causal paths were found linking time perspective dimensions to learning experiences and self-efficacy across RIASEC themes. SCCT has been tested in relation to Holland’s (1997) RIASEC types (Betz et al., 1996; Betz and Rottinghaus, 2006; Fouad et al., 2002; Lent et al., 2003; Rottinghaus et al., 2003a, 2003b; Smith and Fouad, 1999; Schaub and Tokar, 2005).

On the whole, future and present-hedonistic time perspectives were found to be the mostly contributing indicators to interests’ formation. Future perspective plays the larger role for Enterprising interests, followed by Social and Investigative ones. This result can be understood considering those future perspective characteristics (planning, perseverance, responsibility, conscientiousness), which are strictly coherent with Enterprising, Social (in its aspects of care), and Investigative themes. Analogously, an attitude oriented to enjoyment and pleasure in the present (present-hedonistic) resulted to have a positive effect on interests’ formation for the analyzed sample, especially in the Social and Artistic domains. This result can be interpreted considering Social and Artistic areas in their aesthetic and pro-social aspects which appear to be strictly linked to present-hedonistic time perspective.

Adolescents with a dominant present time perspective are primarily oriented towards living for the moment and adopt behaviors that meet immediate desire. Additionally, although they may be most likely to engage in a broad spectrum of high-risk behaviors, such as risky driving, substance abuse, delinquency, and unprotected sexual practices, they seem to be more responsive to experiences that produce immediate satisfaction (Laghi et al., 2012, 2013).

By contrast, adolescents who endorsed a future time perspective that focused on a cost/benefit analysis framed by consideration of abstract options and contingencies. These adolescents were found to get successful results both academically and in their careers.

Sex differences emerged across the different casual paths of the models. As a general trend, males showed to be advantaged in the role played by time perspective within socio-cognitive mechanism. The positive contribute of future and present-hedonistic perspectives is more pronounced and extended for males, while the negative role of present-fatalistic emerges mainly for females. Males appear to better integrate and harmonize past, present, and future frames to recall learning experiences and form their own self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, and interests.

Some useful implications for vocational theories and interventions can be obtained from the present study. Performance accomplishments and verbal persuasion confirmed their significant role as sources of self-efficacy, while vicarious learning has shown to be largely nonsignificant as a direct predictor of self-efficacy. This can be taken in consideration when organizing interventions to enhance self-efficacy based on exposition to learning experiences like the one considered by Betz and Schifano (2000). Performance accomplishments must be accompanied by verbal persuasion if the intervention aims to generate adequate expectations and hence interests.

Vocational specialists can furthermore analyze if low self-efficacy levels are due to time perspective influence, like for instance present-fatalistic perspective that resulted to negatively influence self-efficacy, especially for females. High level self-efficacy beliefs, as well, can be analyzed under this perspective. Realistic female interests, for instance, can be analyzed if originated by past-negative perspective. If vocational interventions are designed to modify those casual relationships that emerged as disadvantageous for self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations and interests, the present study suggests different actions: strengthening time perspective role in Conventional area and overwhelming female gap in the contribution of time perspective in Realistic, Artistic, and Enterprising areas can be two general indications to be developed.

Limitations of the study

Although a consideration of the role of time perspective in SCCT can be an important contribution to the literature, some limitations must be considered when drawing conclusions. The geographical assortment of the sample (Central Italy) is very limited. Therefore, this social cognitive approach should be tested in different socio-cultural contexts. Even if precautions have been taken to avoid overlapping results due to the use of the same instrument to measure different socio-cognitive variables, further strategies (e.g. confirmatory factor analysis) should have been taken in consideration to examine the latent structure underlying the set of measures (e.g. Lent et al., 2003). Linked measurement procedure anyway should be avoided if possible.

Different time perspective instruments can be considered within socio-cognitive framework. The significant role of future time perspective suggests to consider other instruments which take in greater consideration such dimension, distinguishing for instance between a negative and a positive attitude toward future (eg. Adolescent Time Inventory; Worrell et al., 2013). Having considered time perspective indicators separately does not give a global indication on individual differences in temporal perspective. It could be useful to consider, as person’s input in SCCT, the way through which participants are able to balance their different temporal orientation components, as opposed to a bias towards one particular time frame (Boniwell and Zimbardo, 2004; Drake et al., 2008).

Time perspective is expected to play a role not only in the interest model considered in this study. The choice model of SCCT and studies on well-being as related to job satisfaction seem to be suitable to be considered for further studies. However, results should be replicated in other independent samples in order to increase the confidence in reliability and generalizability.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Bandura

(1982) Self-efficacy mechanisms in human agency. American Psychologist 37: 122–147.

Bandura

(1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura

(1997) Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, New York: Freeman.

Bembenutty

Karabenick

(2004) Inherent association between academic delay of gratification, future time perspective, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review 16(1): 35–57.

Betz

(2006) Career self-efficacy theory: Back to the future. Journal of Career Assessment 14: 3–11.

Betz

(2007) Career self-efficacy: Exemplary recent research and emerging directions. Journal of Career Assessment 15: 403–422.

Betz

(2008) Advances in vocational theories. In: Brown

Lent

(eds) Handbook of Counseling Psychology, 4th ed. New York, NY: Wiley, pp. 357–374.

Betz

Borgen

Harmon

(1996) Skills Confidence Inventory Applications and Technical Guide, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Betz

Hackett

(1981) The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations to perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology 28: 399–410.

10.

Betz

Rottinghaus

(2006) Current research on parallel measures of interests and confidence for basic dimensions of vocational activity. Journal of Career Assessment 14: 56–76.

11.

Betz

Schifano

(2000) Evaluation of an intervention to increase realistic self-efficacy and interests in college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior 56: 35–52.

12.

Boniwell

Zimbardo

(2004) Balancing time perspective in pursuit of optimal functioning. In: Linley

Joseph

(eds) Positive Psychology in Practice, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 165–178.

13.

Bosma

(1985) Identity Development in Adolescence: Coping with Commitments, Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Te Groningen.

14.

Crites

(1978) Theory and Research Handbook for the Career Maturity Inventory, Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw Hill.

15.

D’Alessio

Guarino

De Pascalis

, et al. (2003) Testing Zimbardo’s Stanford Time Perspective Inventory (STPI) - short form, an Italian study. Time and Society 12: 333–347.

16.

De Voider

Lens

(1982) Academic achievement and future time perspective as a cognitive-motivational concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42: 566–571.

17.

Drake

Duncan

Sutherland

, et al. (2008) Time perspective and correlates of wellbeing. Time & Society 17(1): 47–61.

18.

Eccles JS (2005) Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In: Elliot AJ and Dweck CS (ed.) Handbook of Competence and Motivation. New York, NY: Guilford, pp. 105–121.

19.

Epley

Ricks

(1963) Foresight and hindsight in the T.A.T. Journal of Projective Techniques 27: 51–59.

20.

Fraisse

(1963) The Psychology of Time, Westport, CT: Greenwood.

21.

Fouad

Smith

Zao

(2002) Across academic domains: Extensions of the social cognitive career model. Journal of Counseling Psychology 49: 164–171.

22.

Gainor

(2006) Twenty-five years of self-efficacy in career assessment and practice. Journal of Career Assessment 14: 161–178.

23.

Heckhausen

(1967) The Anatomy of Achievement Motivation, New York, NY: Academic Press.

24.

Henry

Moffitt

Caspit

, et al. (1994) On the remembrance of thing past. A longitudinal evaluation of the retrospective method. Psychological Assessment 6: 92–101.

25.

Holland JL (1997) Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work Environments. 3rd ed. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

26.

Jöreskog

Sörbom

(1999) LISREL 8.30 [Computer software], Chicago: Scientific Software International.

27.

Keough

Zimbardo

Boyd

(1999) Who’s smoking, drinking, and using drugs? Time perspective as a predictor of substance use. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 21: 149–164.

28.

Klineberg

(1968) Future time perspective and the preference for delayed reward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8: 253–257.

29.

Laghi F, D’Alessio M, Baiocco R, et al. (2007) Contribution to Italian validation and adaptation of selfpresentation tactics scale. In: International Association of Educational and Vocational Guidance (IAEVG). Guidance and Diversity: Research and Applications, University of Padova, 4–6 September.

30.

Laghi

D’Alessio

Pallini

Baiocco

(2009a) Attachment representations and time perspective in adolescence. Social Indicators Research 90: 181–194.

31.

Laghi

Baiocco

D’Alessio

Gurrieri

(2009b) Suicidal ideation and time perspective in high school students. European Psychiatry 24: 41–46.

32.

Laghi

Pallini

D’Alessio

, et al. (2011) Development and validation of the efficacious self-presentation scale. Journal of Genetic Psychology 172(2): 209–219.

33.

Laghi

Liga

Baumgartner

, et al. (2012) Time perspective and psychosocial positive functioning among Italian adolescents who binge eat and drink. Journal of Adolescence 35: 1277–1284.

34.

Laghi

Baiocco

Liga

, et al. (2013) Identity status differences among Italian adolescents: Associations with time perspective. Children and Youth Service Review 35: 482–487.

35.

Lent

Brown

Hackett

(1994) Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior 45: 79–122.

36.

Lent

Brown

Nota

, et al. (2003) Testing social cognitive interest and choice hypotheses across Holland types in Italian high school students. Journal of Vocational Behavior 62: 101–118.

37.

Lent

Brown

(2006) On conceptualizing and assessing social cognitive constructs in career research: A measurement guide. Journal of Career Assessment 14: 12–35.

38.

Le Shan

(1952) Time orientation and social class. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 47: 589–592.

39.

Lindley

Borgen

(2002) Generalized self-efficacy, Holland theme self-efficacy, and academic performance. Journal of Career Assessment 10: 301–314.

40.

Marcia

(1980) Identity in adolescence. In: Adelson

(ed.) Handbook of Adolescent Psychology, New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 159–187.

41.

Nisan

(1972) Dimension of time in relation to choice behavior and achievement orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 21: 175–182.

42.

Nurmi

(1991) How do adolescents see their future? A review of the development of future orientation and planning. Developmental Review 11: 1–59.

43.

Nuttin

(1985) Future Time Perspective and Motivation, Leuven-Hillsdale: Leuven University Press-Erlbaum.

44.

Phan

(2009) Future time perspective in sociocultural contexts: A discussion paper. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology 7: 761–778.

45.

Platt

Eisenman

(1968) Internal-external control of reinforcement, time perspective, adjustment, and anxiety. Journal of General Psychology 79: 121–128.

46.

Raynor

Rubin

(1971) Effects of achievement motivation and future orientation on level of performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 17: 36–41.

47.

Rottinghaus

Betz

Borgen

(2003a) Validity of parallel measures of vocational interests and confidence. Journal of Career Assessment 11: 355–378.

48.

Rottinghaus

Larson

Borgen

(2003b) The relation of self-efficacy and interests: A meta-analysis of 60 samples. Journal of Vocational Behavior 62: 221–236.

49.

Savickas

Silling

Schwartz

(1984) Time perspective in vocational maturity and career decision-making. Journal of Vocational Behavior 25: 258–269.

50.

Schaub

(2004) Social cognitive career theory: Examining the mediating role of sociocognitive variables in the relation of personality to vocational interests. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences 64(7–A): 2463. (UMI No. AAT 3098455).

51.

Schaub

Tokar

(2005) The role of personality and learning experiences in social cognitive career theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior 66: 304–325.

52.

Schermelleh-Engell

Moosbrugger

Müller

(2003) Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online 8: 23–74.

53.

Shell

Husman

(2001) The multivariate dimensionality of personal control and future time perspective in achievement and studying. Contemporary Educational Psychology 26: 481–506.

54.

Smith

Fouad

(1999) Subject-matter specificity of self-efficacy, outcome expectations, interests, and goals: Implications for the social-cognitive model. Journal of Counseling Psychology 46: 461–471.

55.

Super DE (1974) Vocational maturity theory: Toward implementing a psychology of careers in career education and guidance. In: Super DE (ed.) Measuring Vocational Maturity for Counseling and Evaluation. Washington, DC: National Vocational Guidance Association, pp. 9–24.

56.

Super

(1983) Assessment in career guidance: Toward truly developmental counseling. Personnel and Guidance Journal 61: 555–562.

57.

Thayer

Gorman

Wessman

, et al. (1975) The relationship between locus of control and temporal experience. Journal of Genetic Psychology 126: 275–279.

58.

Tokar

Thompson

Plaufcan

, et al. (2007) Precursors of learning experiences in social cognitive career theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior 71: 319–339.

59.

Wallace

Rabin

(1960) Temporal experience. Psychological Bulletin 57: 213–236.

60.

Williams

Subich

(2006) The gendered nature of career related learning experiences: A social cognitive career theory perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior 69: 262–275.

61.

Wolf

Savickas

(1985) Time perspective and causal attributions for achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology 77: 471–480.

62.

Worrell

Mello

Buhl

(2013) Introducing English and German versions of the Adolescent Time Attitude Scale (ATAS). Assessment 4: 496–510.

63.

Zimbardo

Boyd

(1999) Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual – differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77: 1271–1288.

64.

Zimbardo

Kehough

Boyd

(1997) Present time perspective as a predictor of risky driving. Personality and Individual Differences 23: 1007–1023.