Selection on the Road to a Career

Journal of Career Development, Vol. 31, No. 1, Fall 2004 ( 2004)

Selection on the Road to a Career:Evidence of Personality Sortingin Educational Choice

Christophe BooneUniversity of Antwerpen

Woody van OlffenNadine Roijakkers

Maastricht University

In this study we investigate whether the process of Attraction, Selection andAttrition as described by Schneider (1987) is already operative prior to labormarket entry, i.e., in the educational phase of careers. We focused on selectionwith regard to the locus of control personality trait because of its firm concep-tual and empirical relevance in both content and process of choice. Specifichypotheses were proposed as to the sorting of different personality types instudy programs leading to different prospective professional careers. Thestudy was carried out in a sample of 158 Austrian students. We found strongsupport for our hypotheses in that (1) personality predicted specific studychoices and (2) personality predicted different levels of rationality in thechoice process. In addition, the findings also suggest that tighter matches be-tween personality and study programs could be observed for students makingrational choices. The results indicate support for the validity of the ASAmodel in educational choice, provided the use of meaningful individual differ-ences. Several promising avenues for future research are identified.

KEY WORDS: ASA-cycle; educational choice; personality; choice processes; individualdifferences; professional profiles.

Authors appear in alphabetical order.Address correspondence to Woody van Olffen, Maastricht University, Faculty of Eco-

nomics and Business Administration, Department of Organization and Strategy Stud-ies, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, The Netherlands; e-mail: [email protected].

61

0894-8453/04/0900-0061/0 2004 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

62 Journal of Career Development

Introduction

In his seminal 1987 paper, Benjamin Schneider argued that main-stream personality research partly misses the mark because it tendsto focus almost exclusively on the impact of individual differences onbehavior at the individual level of analysis in very restricted situa-tions (e.g., laboratory conditions). The result is that the potential im-pact of personality is minimized because the situations studied cangenerally be characterized as relatively ‘strong’, using clear (experi-mental) protocols or rules for behavior that leave little room for indi-vidual differences to get expressed. In addition, these studies implic-itly assume that individual differences are randomly distributed oversituations. Because of this assumption an important question with re-spect to the effect of individual differences, namely why people findthemselves in different situations, has not received the attention itdeserves.

Therefore, Schneider made a convincing plea that one should focusmore on the dynamic interplay between individual differences on theone hand, and the characteristics, structures and processes of socialsystems at the system (e.g., organizational) level of analysis on theother hand. People tend to “make the place” not so much because theymold the situation to fit their values and personality, but rather be-cause of the subtle operation of sorting at higher levels of aggregation.Specifically, because individuals fundamentally differ as to their val-ues, talents and personality (Costa, McCrae, Zonderman, Barbano,Lebowitz & Larson, 1986; Costa & McCrae, 1993), they feel attractedto and actively search for situations that fit their make-up. This at-traction process is systematically reinforced because those whosecharacteristics fit the demands of the situation at hand are selectedin while the others are selected out. The end result is that individualsare not randomly distributed over different situations, and that oneshould be able to detect meaningful relationships between the charac-teristics of individuals and situations. This sorting process has beencalled the Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) cycle by Schneider, andhas mainly been applied in the context of sorting into occupations andorganizations in the labor market (Schneider, Brent Smith, Taylor &Fleenor, 1998; Schaubroek, Ganster & Jones, 1998).

In the present paper we wish to investigate whether similar sortingprocesses are already operative prior to individuals’ labor market en-try, in particular when they choose study programs at the university.Instead of looking for evidence that demonstrates the operation of the

Christophe Boone, Woody van Olffen, and Nadine Roijakkers 63

different steps of the ASA-cycle directly, we focus, as a start, on theexpected final outcome or implication of the assumed sorting pro-cesses. Specifically, if the ASA-cycle applies to this setting as well, oneshould at least be able to demonstrate that certain types of studentsare over- or underrepresented in certain study programs in a predict-able way. Next, we wish to go one step further by exploring to whatextent the matching of students to programs is the result of a prioriattraction or rather the outcome of selection and attrition. Ideally, tostudy the relative importance of attraction versus selection and attri-tion one needs detailed longitudinal information on: 1) the preferencesof students when they make their study choice in the first place, and2) the performance and relative exit rates of students in differentstudy programs as a function of their assumed “fit” with the program.Unfortunately, we do not have this information. However, to explorethis interesting question we will investigate: 1) the relationship be-tween personality and the extent to which choices are well informedand based on relevant information, and 2) whether matching of per-sonality and study program is more pronounced when people makesuch “rational” choices. The reasoning is that if attraction indeedplays a major role in the sorting process, then the matching of individ-ual and program characteristics should be facilitated the more stu-dents make well informed choices based on relevant information.

The personality trait we chose to study in this respect is the so-called locus of control as developed by Rotter (1966). Locus of controlrefers to relatively stable inter-individual differences in the extent towhich events are believed to be under personal control. Individualsbelieving in internal control (‘internals’) consider themselves to bemasters of their own fate. Internals feel that they can control the oc-currence of events in their lives by applying their effort and skills.Individuals believing in external control, by contrast, regard them-selves as rather passive agents. They consider the occurrence ofevents in their lives to be due mainly to forces beyond their control,and the attainment of valued ends to be dependent primarily onchance, luck, powerful individuals or institutions. Externals do notfeel that they can control their lives by means of their own efforts andactions (Lefcourt, 1982). We chose this particular personality charac-teristic because: 1) internals differ from externals in their capabilitiesand preferences in such a way that one can expect that certain studyprograms match internals better than externals, and 2) previous re-search has shown that locus of control is related to the extent to whichdecision making is informed and well-contemplated (see e.g., Lefcourt,


1982). Replication of this established finding is a secondary objectiveof the current paper. Note that the spirit of the present study is simi-lar to that of earlier work on vocational personality and choice (Hol-land, 1985). Holland, however, focuses on sorting processes into morenarrowly defined situations, such as specific jobs. Instead, we set outto predict general but potentially committing educational choices(study programs) before students enter the labor market. It is clearthat sorting with respect to such broadly defined environments canbest be predicted with personality differences that are equally genericin nature, like internal or external control perceptions. To our knowl-edge, this study is the first to explore the role of locus of control sort-ing in study program choice.

Theory and Hypotheses

Schneider (1987) introduced the idea that “the people make theplace” in an endless cyclical process consisting of three related ele-ments, i.e., Attraction, Selection and Attrition. Although his argumentcan be applied to any kind of sorting into different situations, he fo-cused on how the cycle works in the context of organizations (and to alesser extent occupations). He argued that, first, people are selectivelyattracted to the organization’s character in terms of its structure,strategy and culture. Next, organizations tend to select those individ-uals that fit the current organizational character over those that donot. Finally, an attrition process occurs over time by which voluntaryand involuntary turnover drive out less compatible individuals. As aresult, homogenization of people’s characteristics within organizationsoccurs and is sustained, strengthening the organizations’ character(Schneider, Smith, Taylor & Fleenor, 1998). As said, the same reason-ing applies to any sorting in the labor market in general, e.g., withrespect to occupations and career tracks (Schaubroek, Ganster &Jones, 1998). Recent empirical findings support the central proposi-tion following from the ASA model that organizations and occupationsare relatively homogeneous with respect to the personality of its mem-bers (Schaubroek, Gangster & Jones, 1998; Schneider, Smith, Taylor& Fleenor, 1998). So, the empirical findings are generally consistentwith the operation of ASA-cycles as they show that different peopleinhabit different professional environments and careers.

In the present study we wish to extend this line of reasoning byacknowledging that this sorting mechanism might also operate in re-lationship to the educational programs young people follow. We expect


that students’ personality is related to different programs in a predict-able way for several reasons. First, students might be indirectly at-tracted to certain study programs that provide them with prospectivecareer opportunities in certain work environments that fit their per-sonality. Second, a program might have characteristics (e.g., type ofcurriculum, type of teaching, etc.) that directly attract different per-sons irrespective of the career opportunities it provides. Finally, apartfrom attraction, students who do not match the requirements of theprogram in terms of talents and personality are likely to drop outearly.

These general mechanisms of “educational sorting” can easily betranslated to the case of locus of control (Rotter, 1966), the personalitytrait we chose to investigate in this study. A host of past researchshows that internals do have very different capabilities compared toexternals (e.g., Lefcourt, 1982; van Olffen, 1999). Specifically, researchindicates that internals, as the more self-confident type, have betterleadership qualities and managerial skills. In addition, they are muchmore task-oriented than externals and generally prosper in challeng-ing and uncertain environments. Related to the latter, internals aremore stress resistant than externals. Externals on the other hand aremore socio-emotionally oriented, follow rather than lead, and preferand perform better in more structured task environments. It is clearthat the prospective occupations of each study program differ consid-erably as to, for instance, the amount of uncertainty, challenge, andrequired leadership qualities. We therefore expect that, on average,internals will more than externals prefer and choose programs thatprovide entry to occupations in challenging, unpredictable and un-structured environments. Note that O’Brien (1984) provides evidencethat internals are indeed more likely to choose jobs that have higherskill requirements and provide greater personal autonomy. In addi-tion, it is likely that programs preparing students for e.g., uncertainwork environments are less structured too, reinforcing not only theprocess of attraction to certain programs but also the extent to whichstudents prosper and perform well in these programs. In this respectit is interesting to mention that internal students have been shown tochoose courses that are less structured and require more personal ef-fort (Feather & Volkmer, 1988).

Hypothesis 1: Compared to externals, internals will be overrepresen-ted in study programs leading to more challenging, un-certain and unstructured future professional environ-ments.


Next, we also analyzed the study choice process of students for tworeasons. First, we wanted to replicate previous research on the rela-tionship between locus of control and “rational” decision-making. Sec-ond, analysis of the study choice process allows us to explore the rela-tive importance of the attraction phase in the sorting process. Belowboth hypotheses are elaborated.

In order to make sound choices in an often-confusing environmentof information overload, a number of cognitive functions are impor-tant. The idea that people’s locus of control is related to these cogni-tive abilities, such as alertness, information search and assimilationis intuitively appealing. Internals should be more cautious and calcu-lating about their choices than externals, as this heightens the proba-bility of successfully regulating behavior in which internals trust (Lef-court, 1982). Empirical research into the relationship between thesecognitive abilities and locus of control strongly supports this supposi-tion. Internals are more inquisitive, more curious, and more efficientprocessors of information than are externals who seem to lack manyof the cognitive processes that would allow them to scrutinize theirdecisions and choices. Externals generally have a more reactive ratherthan proactive posture in confronting their environment (for an over-view see Lefcourt, 1982; van Olffen, 1999).

In correspondence with these findings we expect internal studentsto be more conscious, cautious and calculating, say: more “rational”,about their study choice. In particular, we expect internals to haveshown more active search for information prior to their choice. In addi-tion, in order to improve their likelihood of being effective in theirstudies, internal students are expected to have allowed relevant asopposed to rather opportunistic, irrelevant factors to influence theirstudy choice.

Hypothesis 2a: Compared to externals, internals will be more likelyto have actively searched for information on which tobase their study choice.

Hypothesis 2b: Compared to externals, internals will be more likely tohave allowed relevant factors to influence their studychoice.

Finally, we return to the important question of the extent to whichsorting is the result of a conscious, premeditated choice process. Inother words: what is the relative importance of attraction in the ASA-cycle? The general proposition is that if attraction is an important


precursor of sorting, one should observe closer matching between stu-dents and programs when the study choice decision process is rela-tively “rational.” The reason is that the extent to which one feels at-tracted to a situation (in this case a study program) depends on,according to the ASA-theory, the perceived match between one’s per-sonality and the characteristics of that situation. It is clear that sucha judgment can only be made with some accuracy when information,and especially relevant information, is available.

Hypothesis 3: The relationship between locus of control and study pro-gram choice is stronger for students following more ra-tional (i.e., more active and relevant) decision pro-cesses.

Method

Participants and Procedure

A questionnaire was submitted to 265 Austrian students of Aus-tria’s Leopold-Franzens Universitat at Innsbruck. All subjects were inone of the four study programs offered by the Faculty of Social andEconomic Sciences: Economics, Business Administration, BusinessEducation, and International Economic and Business Studies. Re-spondents were distributed over all four years of study. Participationin the study was voluntary and anonymous. The general purpose ofthe study was orally communicated to the participants beforehand inbroad terms. One of the authors was present during lectures in whichquestionnaires were distributed in order to answer questions studentsmight have. For motivation purposes we promised that interested stu-dents could obtain the results through their professor. This yielded aresponse of 158 usable questionnaires; the rest was either not re-turned or filled out incompletely.

Measures

Locus of control. Locus of control was measured with a revised versionof the widely used Rotter (1966) Internal-External Locus of ControlScale. The scale consists of the original 23 forced-choice plus 14 filleritems to make the aim of the test more ambiguous and unclear to thesubjects. Every item of Rotter’s I-E Scale consists of two statements


(an external and an internal alternative) and the subjects are tochoose between them. The following two statements provide examplesof an external and an internal alternative, respectively: “Many timesI feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me,”and “It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays animportant role in my life.” The total locus of control score is obtainedby counting the number of external alternatives chosen (minimum of0 to a maximum of 23). Cronbach’s alpha of the Rotter scale in oursample amounts to .67, which concurs with internal consistencies re-ported by Rotter (1966) and Robinson & Shaver (1973). Alpha’s valueis acceptable (Nunnally, 1978).

Two aspects of a solidly founded (‘rational’) choice process weremeasured, namely how active the search for information was and therelevance of influencing factors on study choice. These were measuredas follows.

Active information search behaviour. To measure active informationsearch, we used three items representing different information sourcesto which Austrian students have access (Osterreichische Hochschuler-schaft, 1997). Specifically: (1) “Before I chose to enroll into a particularstudy program, I collected information from a study counselor,” (2) “Imade my study choice to enroll into a particular study program afterI collected information from siblings and/or friends who were alreadyin college,” and (3) “Before I chose to enroll into a particular studyprogram, I familiarized myself with university life and the variousstudy programs.” In contrast, to measure the role of chance-events inchoosing a study, three statements were taken from a measure de-signed by Baumer, Scheller and Maurice (1994), the so-called “chance-inventory” (“Zufallsinventar”). These are: (4) “Some information thatfascinated me with respect to my study program reached me unexpect-edly,” (5) “Unexpectedly I met someone who could give me importantinformation about my study program,” and (6) “Some unexpectedevent in my life affected my choice to enroll into a particular studyprogram.” These six statements were randomly ordered and studentswere asked to assign ranks to each according to how important it wasin their choice process (1 = highest importance; 6 = lowest impor-tance). The average rank of the active items was calculated and sub-tracted from 7 to have a positive measure of how active the informa-tion search process was.

Choice factor relevance. Factors that influence the decision processvary in the amount to which they are of relevance in making a sound


study choice. The following three statements were adapted from astudy conducted by the Osterreichische Hochschulerschaft (1997) andrepresent examples of factors that should not be allowed to flow intoa thorough decision process (so-called irrelevant factors): (1) “I mademy choice to enroll into a particular study program based on the factthat my high-school friends made the same choice and I wanted tostay together with them,” (2) “I made my choice to enroll into a partic-ular study program under pressure of my parents and/or family mem-bers,” and (3) “I made my choice to enroll into a particular programbased on the fact that the university was situated nearby.” On theother hand, the following three factors were adapted from a list ofsound study choice determinants (so-called relevant factors), includedin the study by Baumer, Scheller and Maurice (1994): (4) “I made mychoice to enroll into a particular study program based on my inter-ests,” (5) “I made my choice to enroll into a particular study programbased on the fact that it would provide an opportunity for self-realiza-tion,” and (6) “I made my choice to enroll into a particular study pro-gram based on the fact that the career opportunities were good.”Again, respondents were asked to rate all factors from most descrip-tive (1) to least descriptive (6) of their study choice process. The aver-age rank of the relevant items was calculated and subtracted from 7to have a positive measure of average choice factor relevance.

Study program choice. We recorded in which of the four study pro-grams offered by the Faculty students were in: (1) Economics, (2) Busi-ness Education (BE), (3) Business Administration (BA), and (4) In-ternational Economic and Business Studies (IEBS). As only 9respondents indicated to be in the (general) Economics program, wedecided to drop this category from our analyses. Each program edu-cates people in order to be effective in a distinct prospective workingenvironment. For Business Education, this is the classroom and forBusiness Administration this is general business. Finally, Interna-tional Economic and Business Studies students are trained to pursuecareers in internationally operating businesses and organizations.Common sense suggests that the uncertainty and dynamism of pro-spective working environments increases from Business Educationthrough Business Administration to International Economic and Busi-ness Studies. For instance, it is reasonable to state that the work envi-ronment of a teacher in a local school is more structured and lessdynamic than the environment of a typical international manager whohas to work under high competitive pressure, has to travel all overthe world and to deal with the uncertainties associated with different


cultures. In addition, the structure of the IEBS program itself is muchmore uncertain than the other programs. Every IEBS student has tospend one year of the study at another university abroad, in a non-German speaking country. Consequently, in order to specify hypothe-sis 1, we expect students’ internality to increase in this same order ofstudy programs (i.e., BE, BA and IEBS).

Control variables. Age and gender were included as control variables.Several studies have indicated sex differences in average locus of con-trol scores, men being more internal than women (Benton, Gelber,Kelley & Liebling, 1969; Brannigan & Tolor, 1971). With respect toage, research generally shows that people become more internal asthey grow older (Lefcourt, 1982; Penk, 1969).

Results

Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics of the variables understudy. The sample (N = 158) contains 69 women and 89 men. Theirmean age was 23.04 years (SD = 3.81). Analysis of variance shows thatalso in this sample women’s locus of control scores (M = 13.71; SD =3.56) are significantly (t(156) = 2.22; p < .05) higher (i.e., more exter-nal) than men (M = 12.45; SD = 3.52). Locus of control did not appearto be related to age in our sample (r = −.009). Only 24 respondents(15%; 14 women and 10 men) study Business Education, whereas therest is almost evenly distributed over the Business Administration(N = 69; 34 women and 35 men) and International Economic and Busi-ness Studies (N = 65; 21 women and 44 men) programs. Note that theaverage activity with which information on study programs was gath-ered is close to the midpoint of the scale (M = 3.61; SD = .86). The rele-vance of choice factors, on the other hand, has a relatively high aver-age (M = 4.78; SD = .43). Thus, the average student was led byrelatively relevant choice factors, but only moderately active in gath-ering information.

The results of testing hypothesis 1 are reported in Table 2. We con-ducted 3 separate logistic regression analyses on the choice for Busi-ness Administration, Business Education or International Economicand Business Studies. As hypothesis 1 predicted, locus of control is asignificant predictor of the choice to study Business Education andInternational Economic and Business Studies. Note that the sign ofthe effects is also as predicted: externals are more drawn to the struc-


Table 1Variable Descriptives

Variable M SD Minimum Maximum

1. Age 23.04 3.81 18 492. Gender (0 = female; 1 = .56 .50 0 1

male)3. Locus of control 13.00 3.58 5 20

Choice process rationality4. Mean importance of active 3.61 .86 2 5

information gathering5. Mean relevance of choice 4.78 .43 2.67 5

factors employed

Study dummies6. S1–Business administration .44 .50 0 17. S2–Business education .15 .36 0 18. S3–International economics .41 .49 0 1

Note. N = 158.

Table 2Study Program Choice

Business Business InternationalAdministration Education Economics

Constant −4.27** −4.40* 6.22***Age .16** .02 −.23**Gender −.46 −.53 .82*Locus of control .04 .18* −.14**

χ2 13.04** 9.47* 28.77***−2 log likelihood 203.45 125.142 185.28Pseudo-R2 .06 .07 .13

Note. N = 158. Logistic regression is applied. The dependent is 1 if the study programis chosen and 0 if it is not.†p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (χ2 tests).


tured prospective working environments of the Business Educationprogram, whereas internals go for the more unstructured Interna-tional Economic and Business Studies program and/or the more dy-namic careers offered through an IEBS degree. An ANCOVA analysis(with age and gender as covariates) on the locus of control scores ofstudents confirms this picture. A significant difference (F(2, 153) =5.95; p < .01) exists between the estimated marginal locus of controlmeans of students in Business Education (M = 14.75; SD = .71), Busi-ness Administration (M = 13.36; SD = .42) and International Econom-ics and Business Studies (M = 11.97; SD = .44). This is precisely theorder of personality scores we predicted. Pairwise comparison tests(i.c., Least Significant Differences; not shown here) indicate that alldifferences are significant at the 5% level. Note that especially thedifference between the IEBS students and the students of the otherprograms is very large. We conclude that strong support was foundfor hypothesis 1.

Table 3 shows regression results on hypotheses 2a and 2b. We ap-plied OLS regression on rank averages. Internality (i.e., low values onthe locus of control scale) appears to be positively associated with boththe activity of information search and the relevance of the involvedchoice factors. In a word: internals make better-founded study choicesthan externals do. This confirms both hypotheses 2a and 2b. An addi-

Table 3Active Information Gathering and Choice Factor Relevance

Activity of Relevance ofInfo Gathering Choice Factors

Constant 5.24*** 5.05***Age −.04** .01Gender −.25* −.14*Locus of control −.05** −.02*S1 .32* −.10†S2 −.05 .10

F 3.78** 2.34*R2 .11 .07

Note. N = 158; OLS regression coefficients are reported.†p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (t-tests).


tional interesting finding in Table 3 is the consistently negative andsignificant value of the gender variable. Apparently, female studentsmake better-contemplated choices than their male counterparts. Totest the robustness of these results for violation of normality assump-tions we also applied logistic regressions on alternative dependentslike dummy variables indicating “at least two relevant (active) itemsin the top 3” and “entirely relevant (active) top 3.” The results, avail-able from the authors upon request, are identical to the ones reportedhere.

Finally, we tested our explorative hypothesis 3 to see whether per-sonality sorting is more expressed under more consciously madechoice conditions. To do so, we reran the logistic regressions of hypoth-esis 1 for high and low values of information search activity and choicefactor relevance. High and low categories were obtained by performingmedian splits on these variables. This yielded 73 low-activity individu-als and 85 high-activity individuals. As the relevance variable isstrongly skewed to the right, this procedure unfortunately leads to arather unbalanced categorization of 50 low-relevance and 108 high-relevance respondents. Note that these 108 students had every rele-vant information item in their top three. Table 4 shows the resultingcoefficients of the locus of control variable for either type of choiceprocess (again controlling for age and gender).

Information gathering activity does not seem to lead to more pro-

Table 4Personality-Effects on Study Choice Under Low

and High Choice Process Rationality

Business Business InternationalAdministration Education Economics

Activity of info gatheringlow (n = 73) .05 .26* −.20*high (n = 85) .09 .10 −.14*

Relevance of choice factorslow (n = 50) .03 .09 −.11high (n = 108) .03 .23* −.16*

Note. The logistic regression coefficient of the locus of control variable (see Table 2) un-der either condition is reported, controlling for age and gender.*p < .05 (χ2 tests).


nounced personality sorting; regarding Business Education it evenseems to reduce it. With respect to the relevance of choice factors em-ployed, however, we do find a result that is in line with the hypothesis.Indeed, personality sorting is more outspoken as study choice is basedon more relevant considerations. These latter results are confirmed inan ANCOVA analysis predicting locus of control by study programunder low and high relevance of choice factors (controlling for age andgender). Under low relevance conditions F(2, 45) = .697 (n.s), whereasF(2, 103) = 5.05 (p < .01) under high relevance conditions. The locusof control variance explained by the study program-factor (i.e., eta-squared) is 3% (n.s.) and 9% (p < .01), respectively. Partial support,as far as the relevance of information is concerned, is therefore foundfor hypothesis 3.

Discussion

People and environments are not randomly combined. In the pres-ent study we set out to test this central prediction of ASA-theory. Ifdifferent occupations and/or organizations are characterized by differ-ent people, as previous research has shown, one might assert that thissorting is already present when people choose, and are selected in orout of, study programs that channel them into different professions.We did indeed find strong support for personality differences betweenstudents in different study programs. Note that the relatively lowalpha level of the Rotter scale (.67) in our sample limits the powerof our study and makes the finding of a significant effect even moreremarkable. Moreover, based on different theoretical “fits” of personal-ities with characteristics of both the study program itself and of asso-ciative features of the prospective working environments, we wereable to specify which personality types would be over-represented inwhich study program. It should be noted that the effect is not trivialas the size of this personality effect is considerable. For instance, anincrease of one standard deviation (i.e., 3.58) in locus of control fromits mean almost doubles the base probability of choosing Business Ed-ucation (from 13% to 23%). A decline of the same magnitude (i.e., moreinternality) leads to a rise in the base chance of choosing InternationalBusiness of about one-third (from 39% to 51%). Given the very signifi-cant results, our study underscores the importance for the advance-ment of ASA-theory to use established personality traits with knownbehavioral consequences. Taken together, the present findings are an


important addition to the Schneider, Smith, Taylor and Fleenor (1998)findings on personality profiles in different organizational settings be-cause they show that a comparable mechanism is operative even be-fore people enter the labor market. This suggests that the breeding ofprofessional personality profiles is partly accomplished through sort-ing in the required educational trajectories.

In order to map the choice process leading to these different studychoices, we relied on extensive past cognitive research indicating thatinternals are more knowledgeable and conscious decision makers thanexternals in a variety of situations. We clearly replicated these find-ings with regard to the study choice process, as internal studentsbased their study program choice on a more active information searchprocess in which relevant instead of rather opportunistic choice con-siderations dominate.

Finally, to explore the importance of the attraction phase of theASA-cycle, we analyzed whether we could observe a closer fit betweenpersonality and study program for students reporting to have mademore conscious and deliberate choices. This appeared to be the caseonly for the relevance of choice factors involved. Specifically, the morestudents choose programs based on their interests and opportunitiesfor self-realization, the more these choices seem to reflect their locus-of-control dispositions. The result is a closer fit between the latter andstudy program characteristics. In contrast, actively collected informa-tion does not appear to lead to better fits than haphazardly acquiredinformation. Close examination of the items measuring active infor-mation gathering allows us to provide a reasonable ex post explana-tion. It may be that the value of the information concerning the con-tent and characteristics of the program does not depend on whetherthe information was actively or haphazardly gathered. For instance,the information a student unexpectedly receives from a friend can alsobe valuable in making a conscious study choice. In this respect it isinteresting to mention that there is indeed no significant correlation(r = −.04; n.s.) between the relevant and active choice factor variables.Apparently, active search does not increase the content value (i.e., rel-evance) of that information compared to unexpectedly obtained infor-mation. This might be the reason why the tightness of the matchingof students and study programs does not seem to depend on whetherthe information was actively or passively obtained.

The present study has limitations that point to four important ave-nues for future research. First, the cross-sectional nature of our re-search design only permitted us to demonstrate the consistency of the


ultimate sorting outcome of student and program characteristics withthe operation of the assumed ASA-cycle. However, this static designdoes not allow one to unambiguously unravel the importance of thedifferent phases of the ASA-cycle, nor whether it is indeed responsiblefor the observed personality differences between programs. As a resultwe were not able to ascertain how exactly the differences in personal-ity between the studies were brought about, apart from stating thatconscious choice seems to be involved. In order to shed light on this,longitudinal research is necessary in which different cohorts of stu-dents are followed over time. We need to have information on prefer-ences prior to study choice and subsequent data on performance andexit rates of “fits” and “misfits.” If initial differences in attraction areimportant in explaining the sorting process, one would expect to ob-serve low drop-out rates. As a result, individual differences betweenstudents within the same program would be small in the first place(low variance) and remain rather constant over time. Conversely,when attrition dominates, “misfits” will leave the program, makingcohorts of students within the same program more homogeneous overtime. Such longitudinal research would also allow one to exclude thepossibility that study program choice influences i.e., changes locus ofcontrol (or personality in general) rather than the other way around.We think that this is not very likely though, because research hasrevealed that locus of control is a fundamental, relatively stable per-sonality trait. In this respect, Miller and Rose (1982) and Pedersen,Gatz, Plomin, Nesselroade and McClearn (1989) have shown that lo-cus of control is to a certain extent inherited.

Second, we focused on students from a Faculty of Social and Eco-nomic Sciences. This of course restricts the range of personality typesin our sample. By itself this is not a methodological problem as restric-tion in range only hampers finding significant differences and thusworks against confirming hypotheses. The fact that we do find largepersonality differences between programs, points to the importance ofthe process. Nevertheless, it might be interesting in future researchto compare students following very different majors. For instance,Frank, Gilovich and Regan (1993) found that economics students aremuch less cooperative than students studying other majors, such aspsychology. As locus of control has been shown to be related to cooper-ative behavior (Boone, De Brabander & van Witteloostuijn, 1999)maybe these differences in the tendency to cooperate are related topersonality sorting too.

Third, university privacy regulations prevented access to data on


students’ academic ability. This is unfortunate because previous re-search indicates a relationship between internality and academicachievement, even after controlling for intelligence (Bar-Tal & Bar-Zohar, 1977; Schmitz & Skinner, 1993). As a result, perhaps abilityaccounts for some of the observed covariance between internality andstudy program choice. A clear recommendation for future work on per-sonality sorting is therefore to control for choice restrictions based on,for instance, ability.

Finally, an implicit assumption of the ASA-theory is that personswho do not match the characteristics of the situation perform lessthan those who fit. However, as in the present study, this assumptionis seldom explicitly investigated. Fortunately, much indirect evidencecan be found in the literature. For instance, with respect to locus ofcontrol, internals appear to perform better in high managerial posi-tions and in ambiguous situations than externals, whereas externalsperform better and show more job satisfaction when the situation isclearly structured (Boone, De Brabander & van Witteloostuijn, 1996).Because the negative consequences of being a “misfit” can be impor-tant both in terms of performance and individual well being, we thinkthat more systematic research is required into the mapping of charac-teristics of situations and individuals, and especially in understandingits consequences. As this type of research helps to avoid the occur-rence of “mismatches,” it could be of high practical significance. Interms of study program choice, for instance, it is clear that providingstudents with accurate information on both competencies and person-ality on the one hand, and requirements of the program on the otherhand, would greatly aid students to select environments in which theyprosper.

REFERENCES

Bar-Tal, D. & Bar-Zohar, Y. (1977). The relationship between perception of locus ofcontrol and academic achievement, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2, 181–199.

Baumer, T., Scheller, R. & Maurice, J. von (1994). Der Einfluß von Zufallserfahrungenauf die Studienfachwahl, Swiss Journal of Psychology, 53, 166–177.

Benton, A. A., Gelber, E. R., Kelley, H. H. & Liebling, B. H. (1969). Reactions to variousdegrees of deceit in a mixed-motive relationship, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 12, 170–180.

Boone, C., De Brabander, B. & van Witteloostuijn, A. (1996). CEO locus of control andsmall firm performance: an integrative framework and empirical test, Journal ofManagement Studies, 33, 667–699.


Boone, C., De Brabander, B. & van Witteloostuijn, A. (1999). The impact of personalityon behavior in five Prisoner’s Dilemma games, Journal of Economic Psychology, 20,343–377.

Brannigan, G. G. & Tolor, A. (1971). Sex differences in adaptive styles, Journal of Ge-netic Psychology, 119, 143–149.

Costa, P.T., Jr., McCrae, R.R., Zonderman, A.B., Barbano, H.E., Lebowitz, B. & Larson,D.M. (1986). Cross-sectional studies of personality in a national sample: 2. Stabilityin neuroticism, extraversion, and openness, Psychology and Aging, 1, 144–149.

Costa, P.T., Jr. & McCrae, R.R. (1993). Set like plaster? Evidence for the stability ofadult personality, In T.F. Heatherton & J.L. Weinberger (Eds.), Can personalitychange? (pp. 21–40). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Feather, N.T. & Volkmer, R.E. (1988). Preference for situations involving effort, timepressure, and feedback in relation to type A behavior, locus of control, and test anxi-ety, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 266–271.

Frank, R.H., Gilovich, T. & Regan, D.T. (1993). Does studying economics inhibit cooper-ation? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7, 159–171.

Holland, J.L. (1985). Making vocational choices: a theory of vocational personalities andwork environments, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lefcourt, H. M. (1982). Locus of control: current trends in theory and research (2nd ed.),Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Miller, J.Z. & Rose, R.J. (1982). Familial resemblance in locus of control: a twin-familystudy of the internal-external scale, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42,535–540.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory, (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill.O’Brien, G.E. (1984). Reciprocal effects between locus of control and job attributes, Aus-

tralian Journal of Psychology, 36, 57–74.Olffen, W. van (1999). Team level locus of control and competitive team behaviour—an

experimental study, Maastricht: Datawyse.Osterreichische Hochschulerschaft (1997). Maturantenwegweiser fur ein erfolgreiches

Studieren, Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press.Pedersen, N.L., Gatz, M., Plomin, R., Nesselroade, J.R. & McClearn, G.E. (1989). Indi-

vidual differences in locus of control during the second half of the life span for identi-cal and fraternal twins reared apart and reared together, Journal of Gerontology, 44,100–105.

Penk, W. (1969). Age changes and correlates of internal-external locus of control scales,Psychological Reports, 25, 856.

Robinson, J. P. & Shaver, P.R. (1973). Measures of social psychological attitudes, AnnArbor, MI: University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Re-search.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalised expectancies for internal versus external control ofreinforcement, Psychological Monographs, 80 (Whole No. 609).

Schaubroek, J., Ganster, D.C. & Jones, J.R. (1998). Organization and occupational in-fluences in the Attraction-Selection-Attrition-process, Journal of Applied Psychology,83, 869–891.

Schmitz, B. & Skinner, E. (1993), Perceived control, effort and academic performance:interindividual and multivariate time-series analyses, Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology, 64, 1010–1028.

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place, Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453.Schneider, B., Brent Smith, D., Taylor, S. & Fleenor, J. (1998). Personality and organi-

zations: a test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis, Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 83, 462–470.

Documents

Selection on the Road to a Career