Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 368–375

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate / jvb

Role ambiguity and self-efficacy: The moderating effects of goalorientation and procedural justice

Andrew Li a,1, Jessica Bagger b,*

a College of Business, P.O. Box 60809, West Texas A&M University, Canyon TX 79016, USAb College of Business Administration, California State University, Sacramento, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95819-6088, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 27 March 2008Available online 30 July 2008

Keywords:Role ambiguitySelf-efficacyGoal orientationProcedural justiceField study

0001-8791/$ - see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Incdoi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.07.008

* Corresponding author. Fax: +1 916 278 6489.E-mail addresses: ali@mail.wtamu.edu (A. Li), ba

1 Fax: +1 520 621 4171.

The present study investigated variables that moderated the relationship between roleambiguity and self-efficacy. Results of a field study found support for the moderating roleof learning goal orientation, such that the relationship between role ambiguity and self-efficacy was weaker when learning goal orientation was high. In addition, we found thatprocedural justice moderated the role ambiguity—self-efficacy relationship, such that therelationship was stronger when procedural justice was high. However, contrary to our pre-diction, avoiding goal orientation did not interact with role ambiguity to predict self-effi-cacy. Implications of these findings for theory and practice are discussed.

� 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The construct of role ambiguity, defined as ‘‘employees’ perceptions of uncertainty concerning various aspects of theirjobs” (Breaugh & Colihan, 1994, p. 191), has generated persistent research interest. In part, this is due to the fact that researchfindings have related it to a broad range of work-relevant outcomes, such as performance, turnover intentions, actual turn-over, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Fisher & Gitelson, 1983; Jackson & Schuler, 1985; Tubre & Collins,2000). Among the many variables that have been found to be related to role ambiguity, one receiving increased researchattention is self-efficacy (Beauchamp, Bray, Eys, & Carron, 2002; Chen & Bliese, 2002; Jex & Gudanowski, 1992). Self-efficacyrefers to ‘‘people’s beliefs about their capabilities to exercise control over events that affect their lives” (Bandura, 1989, p.1175). In the present study, we focus on the belief in one’s capability to execute actions needed to meet job requirements,a form of self-efficacy that is task specific and relative malleable (Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2004).

There are two reasons to believe that role ambiguity may be negatively related to self-efficacy. First, role ambiguity re-duces the quality of the information that can be used to make an accurate assessment of one’s ability to perform a task. Sec-ond, according to social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977), to have a high level of self-efficacy, a person must be able tovisualize effective performance in a given situation. When role ambiguity is high, the ability to visualize one’s performanceis impaired, thereby reducing one’s confidence in his/her ability to perform effectively. Consistent with these arguments, Gistand Mitchell (1992) suggested that one way to increase self-efficacy is to give an individual ‘‘a more thorough understandingof the task attributes, complexity, task environment, and the way in which these factors can be controlled” (p. 203).

However, there has been mixed empirical evidence on the negative relationship between role ambiguity and self-efficacy.While a negative relationship has been found in some studies (e.g., Beauchamp et al., 2002; Bray & Brawley, 2002), no such

. All rights reserved.

ggerj@csus.edu (J. Bagger).

A. Li, J. Bagger / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 368–375 369

effects have been observed in others (Jex & Gudanowski, 1992). Such inconsistent findings suggest the presence of moder-ating variables. The present study sought to identify conditions under which role ambiguity may be related to self-efficacy.According to Kahn and colleagues (1964), the relationships between role ambiguity and its related variables tend to be mod-erated by three broad categories of variables: organizational, interpersonal, and personality processes. In the present study,we focused on two potential moderators: goal orientation representing a personality process and procedural justice repre-senting an organizational process.

2. Theoretical foundation

2.1. Goal orientation

Researchers have suggested that there are two different dispositional goal orientations: performance goal and learninggoal orientations (e.g., VandeWalle, Cron, & Slocum, 2001). Performance-oriented individuals tend to conceive of their abilityas a fixed entity. As such, they seek to prove their competence on a task. Learning-oriented individuals, however, tend toview their abilities as being malleable. For this reason, they tend to focus on improving their task performance. A refinementof the construct bifurcated performance goal orientation into two separate dimensions (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996;VandeWalle, 1997): proving goal orientation (that focuses on demonstrating one’s abilities) and avoiding goal orientation(that focuses on avoiding negative comments on one’s competence). Empirical research has provided supportive evidenceon the theoretical justification, factor structure, convergent, and discriminant validity of this new conceptualization(VandeWalle et al., 2001).

We argue that goal orientation may provide a mechanism to explain the inconsistent relationship between role ambiguityand self-efficacy. Although our earlier discussion suggests that role ambiguity may represent a considerable challenge toemployees and may be negatively related to their self-efficacy, this effect may be less pernicious for individuals who are highon a learning goal orientation. Previous research has shown that these individuals tend to view a challenging situation as anopportunity to advance their abilities (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Instead of withdrawing themselves from the challenge, theyconfront it head-on, becoming intrinsically involved in the task, developing effective task strategies, expending additionaleffort, and intensifying their attention on task-related activities (Elliot, 1999; Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz,1996; Elliot & Thrash, 2002; Van Yperen & Janssen, 2002). These arguments suggest that learning-oriented individualsmay proactively scout for information that can be used to reduce role ambiguity. Even if they fail to perform ade-quately—as a result of role ambiguity—they draw on these experiences to enhance their abilities. These characteristics en-able them to remain resilient and see the positive side even in a dire situation, as well as allow them to acquire thecompetence to overcome role ambiguity and to perform effectively at work. As such, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1. Learning goal orientation moderates the relationship between role ambiguity and self-efficacy, such that thenegative relationship is weaker when the level of learning goal orientation is high.

Individuals who are high on avoiding goal orientation may be particularly averse to appearing incompetent (VandeWalle,1997). As a result, they resort to avoidance when they encounter situations that are considered beyond their coping abilities(Elliot & Thrash, 2002). There are a number of reasons to anticipate that avoiding goal orientation may moderate the roleambiguity—self-efficacy relationship. First, avoiding-oriented individuals may respond negatively to role ambiguity becauseit is likely to adversely affect their performance and potentially reveal their lack of abilities. These negative responses, orlearned helplessness, may hinder their abilities to develop effective strategies to cope with role ambiguity and increase theirtendency to attribute it to a lack of abilities (Diener & Dweck, 1980). Second, as an almost inevitable consequence of roleambiguity, individuals may encounter negative performance feedback. The feedback, however, may be viewed as a sign oflow abilities by avoiding-oriented individuals (VandeWalle et al., 2001). Third, to the extent that an avoiding goal may directone’s attention to negative outcomes or information, perceptions of role ambiguity are more likely to elicit threat appraisal ofthe situation and reduce one’s sense of control, which may produce a low level of competency (Bandura, 1997). Fourth,avoiding-oriented individuals are likely to experience negative physiological states such as anxiety, which may reduce one’sself-efficacy (Elliot & McGregor, 1999). As such, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2. Avoiding goal orientation moderates the relationship between role ambiguity and self-efficacy, such that thenegative relationship is stronger when the level of avoiding goal orientation is high.

Proving goal orientation is sometimes viewed as a hybrid of two motives: performance approach (seek success) and per-formance avoidance (avoid failure) (Elliot & Church, 1997). When performance approach motive is accessible, individualsmay ‘‘produce processes and outcomes similar to those yielded by mastery (learning) goals” (Elliot, 1999), such as high taskmotivation, perseverance in the face of difficulties, increased effort, and enhanced task performance. In contrast, when per-formance avoidance motive is accessible, individuals may demonstrate maladaptive responses compatible to those yieldedby avoiding goals, such as withdrawal from tasks, fear of failure, and low performance. Researchers argue that the accessi-bility of these two competing motives depends on how a given situation is perceived (as a threat or as a learning opportu-nity) by proving-oriented individuals. As such, proving-oriented individuals may potentially respond to role ambiguity in

370 A. Li, J. Bagger / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 368–375

ways analogous to how learning-oriented or avoiding-oriented individuals may respond. Based on these arguments, weelected not to develop a formal hypothesis on the moderating effect of proving goal orientation. Instead, we posed the fol-lowing research question:

Research Question. Does proving goal orientation moderate the negative relationship between role ambiguity and self-efficacy?

2.2. Procedural justice

Procedural justice is defined as the extent to which the procedures used in the decision-making and reward distribu-tion processes are viewed as fair (Lind & Tyler, 1988). Attribution theory may provide a theoretical framework to under-stand the relationships among self-efficacy, procedural justice, and role ambiguity (Ployhart & Ryan, 1997; Schroth &Pradhan Shah, 2000). According to attribution theory, individuals have the tendency to internalize success while exter-nalize failure, in an effort to protect their ego (Pyszczynski, Greenberg, & Holt, 1985). However, one’s ability to maintaina positive self-concept may be thwarted when a situational scapegoat is not available. Specifically, individuals look toprocedural information to account for a negative situation, such as role ambiguity. When procedural justice is low, a neg-ative situation can be attributed to external factors, which may serve to protect one’s self-efficacy. However, when pro-cedural justice is high, one has nobody but himself/herself to blame (e.g., Gilliland, 1994), which may reduce one’s self-efficacy. Therefore, the relationship between role ambiguity and self-efficacy becomes weaker if one can attribute it to asituation (low procedural justice). However, role ambiguity is more strongly related to self-efficacy when one attributesthe problem to oneself (because it is not possible to blame it on procedural unfairness). Based on these arguments, wehypothesize:

Hypothesis 3. Procedural justice moderates the relationship between role ambiguity and self-efficacy, such that thenegative relationship is stronger when the level of procedural is high.

3. Method

3.1. Sample

The research site was an architectural firm with offices distributed throughout the United States. At the time of the study,the organization was experiencing rapid business expansions as the number of employees had greatly increased in the lastcouple of years. A total of 172 employees responded to our survey, representing 55% of the total workforce. Removal of miss-ing data reduced the number of respondents to 165. The mean age of the respondents was 41.6 (SD = 12.9). They reportedworking an average of 44.7 h per week (SD = 7.9) and had an average tenure of 6 years (SD = 7.8). Among the respondents,65% were males and 85% had a bachelor’s degree.

3.2. Procedure

Per request of the investigators, the human resources director sent out an email to all employees in the organization. Theemail contained a brief introduction of the study, an assurance of confidentiality, and a link to a website where employeescould complete the survey. Two reminders were sent out subsequently (the first reminder was sent out a week after the ini-tial email; the second reminder was sent out 10 days after the second email) offering employees who had not yet completedthe survey a chance for them to do so.

3.3. Measures

In addition to demographic questions, participants responded to measures of goal orientation, procedural justice, roleambiguity, and self-efficacy. Responses to the measures were rated on a 5-point continuum (1 = strongly disagree to5 = strongly agree).

3.4.1. Goal orientationThe three dimensions of goal orientation (learning, proving, and avoiding) were measured using a scale developed

by VandeWalle (1997). Research using this scale has produced evidence supportive of its discriminate and convergentvalidity. A sample item of the learning goal orientation scale (five items) is ‘‘I am willing to select a challenging workassignment that I can learn a lot from.” A sample item of the proving goal orientation scale (four items) is ‘‘I try tofigure out what it takes to prove my ability to other at work.” A sample item of the avoiding goal orientation scale(four items) is ‘‘I prefer to avoid situations at work where I might perform poorly.” The internal consistency esti-mates (Cronbach’s alpha) were .90 (learning goal orientation), .78 (proving goal orientation), and .83 (avoiding goalorientation).

A. Li, J. Bagger / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 368–375 371

3.4.2. Procedural justiceA six-item scale developed by Masterson (2001) was used to measure procedural justice. This measure reflects the extent

to which employees perceive the procedures used in the organization as fair. A sample item from the measure is ‘‘(name ofthe organization) has a set of procedures that allow for requests for clarification or additional information about decisionsrelevant to the employees.” The internal consistency of the six procedural justice items was .94.

3.4.3. Role ambiguityRole ambiguity was measured with a six-item scale developed by Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970). The role ambiguity

scale assesses the extent to which an individual has sufficient and clear information regarding job tasks. A sample item fromthe measure is ‘‘There is clear explanation as of what has to be done at work.” We reverse-coded the scale so that higherscores represented higher levels of role ambiguity. The reliability coefficient was .86.

3.4.4. Self-efficacyWe assessed respondents’ level of self-efficacy using a seven-item scale developed by Jones (1986). The scale reflects the

extent to which an individual feels confident in his/her ability at work. A sample item of the scale is ‘‘My job is well withinthe scope of my abilities.” The internal consistency was .70.

4. Results

Means, standard deviations, and the inter-correlations of measured variables are presented in Table 1. Inspections of theinter-correlations among the variables reveal a non-significant correlation between self-efficacy and role ambiguity.Although self-efficacy was significantly related to learning goal orientation, it was not significantly related to either provinggoal or avoiding goal orientation. Procedural justice was significantly correlated with role ambiguity but it was not signifi-cantly related to any of the goal orientations.

Hypothesis 1 states that learning goal orientation moderates the relationship between role ambiguity and self-efficacy.We conducted a hierarchical linear regression to assess this hypothesis. Specifically, the main effects were entered intothe equation first, followed by the interaction term. All the predictors were mean-centered. Results of the analyses are pre-sented in Table 2. As hypothesized, the interaction effect of role ambiguity and learning goal orientation on self-efficacy wassignificant. To assess the nature of the interaction, we plotted the values of plus and minus one standard deviation from themeans of role ambiguity and learning goal orientation, based on the recommendation of Cohen and Cohen (1983). Fig. 1shows that the association between role ambiguity and self-efficacy was contingent upon the level of learning goal orienta-tion. Specifically, when learning goal orientation was low, role ambiguity was negatively related to self-efficacy. However,when learning goal was high, it appears that the relationship was in a reversed direction, such that high role ambiguitywas related to a high level of self-efficacy. Results of the simple slope test (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003) indicatedthat when learning goal orientation was low, role ambiguity significantly predicted self-efficacy t(161) = 1.64, p = .05(one-tailed test). However, when learning goal orientation was high, role ambiguity did not significantly predict self-efficacyt(161) = 1.37, ns.

Hypothesis 2 states that avoiding goal orientation moderates the relationship between role ambiguity and self-efficacy. Re-sults of the hierarchical regression analysis, presented in Table 2, show that the interaction between avoiding goal orientationand role ambiguity was not statistically significant. Although we did not make a formal hypothesis on the effects of proving goal,we nevertheless conducted an exploratory moderating analysis to address our research question. Results of the analysis, pre-sented in Table 2, show that proving goal orientation did not significantly interact with role ambiguity to predict self-efficacy.

Hypothesis 3 states that procedural justice moderates the relationship between role ambiguity and self-efficacy. We pres-ent the results of the hierarchical regression analysis in Table 2. As predicted, the interaction between procedural justice androle ambiguity was statistically significant. The pattern of the interaction is presented in Fig. 2. The relationship between roleambiguity and self-efficacy was stronger when procedural justice was high, whereas the relationship was considerablyweaker when procedural justice was low. Results of the simple slope analyses indicate that when procedural justice washigh, role ambiguity was negatively related to self-efficacy t(161) = 2.61, p < .01 (one-tailed). In contrast, role ambiguitywas not significantly related to self-efficacy when procedural justice was low t(161) = .26, ns.

Table 1Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and inter-correlations of measured variables (N = 165)

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Role ambiguity 2.21 .75 (.86)2. Learning goal orient. 4.50 .51 �.18* (.90)3. Proving goal orient. 3.49 .86 �.08 .10 (.78)4. Avoiding goal orient. 2.17 .75 .06 �.35** .28** (.83)5. Procedural justice 2.88 .94 �.46** �.03 .06 .09 (.94)6. Self-efficacy 3.73 .56 �.06 .33** �.05 �.11 �.06 (.70)

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01. Cronbach’s alpha is shown on the diagonal.

Table 2The effects of role ambiguity, goal orientation, and procedural justice on self-efficacy

DV Self-efficacy Self-efficacy Self-efficacy Self-efficacy

Step 1Role ambiguity 0 Role ambiguity �.07 Role ambiguity �.05 Role ambiguity �.11Learning goal orient. .34* Proving goal orient. �.05 Avoiding goal orient. �.11 Procedural justice �.10Adjusted R2 .10 Adjusted R2 0 Adjusted R2 0 Adjusted R2 0

Step 2Role ambiguity �.04 Role ambiguity �.07 Role ambiguity �.10 Role ambiguity �.14Learning goal orient. .32 Proving goal orient. �.04 Avoiding goal orient. �.12 Procedural justice �.11RA � LG .15* RA � PG �.04 RA � AG �.12 RA � PJ �.19*

Adjusted R2 .12 Adjusted R2 0 Adjusted R2 .01 Adjusted R2 .03Change in R2 .02 Change in R2 0 Change in R2 .01 Change in R2 .03

Note. Standardized coefficients. RA, role ambiguity; LG, learning goal orientation; PG, proving goal orientation; AG, avoiding goal orientation; PJ, proceduraljustice.

* p < .05.

3.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.9

44.1

High Role Ambiguity Low Role Ambiguity

Self-

Effic

acy

HLGLLG

Fig. 1. Interaction between learning goal orientation and role ambiguity on self-efficacy. HLG, high learning goal orientation; LLG, low learning goalorientation.

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

High Role Ambiguity Low Role Ambiguity

Self-

Effic

acy

HPJLPJ

Fig. 2. Interaction between procedural justice and role ambiguity on self-efficacy. HPJ, high procedural justice; LPJ, low procedural justice.

372 A. Li, J. Bagger / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 368–375

5. Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to investigate variables that might explain the inconsistent findings on the relation-ships between role ambiguity and self-efficacy. We found that self-efficacy was not significantly related to role ambiguity, afinding consistent with what was reported by Jex and Gudanowski (1992) but inconsistent with what was reported by Chenand Bliese (2002). Absent our investigations into moderating variables, ours adds to the collection of studies that reported

A. Li, J. Bagger / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 368–375 373

the inconsistent effects of role ambiguity (Fisher & Gitelson, 1983; Jackson & Schuler, 1985). The inconsistent effects of roleambiguity are not altogether surprising because, as Kahn and colleagues (1964) pointed out, ‘‘not all individuals are equallysensitive to such stresses [as a result of role ambiguity], of course, nor does every individual respond to tensions in the sameway” (p. 223).

Consistent with Kahn and colleagues’ suggestions, we examined a personality-related moderator, goal orientation, and anorganization-related moderator, procedural justice. Past research has shown that learning goal orientation produces anintrinsic motivation on challenging tasks, concentration of effort and attention on task-related activities, a deep processingof information, a desire for enhancement of competence, and a sense of optimism in the face of adversity (Elliot & Thrash,2002). We reasoned that these characteristics allow individuals to overcome role ambiguity and preserve their self-efficacyexpectancy. Consistent with our argument and supporting Hypothesis 1, we found that role ambiguity was significantly re-lated to self-efficacy only when learning goal orientation was low. The relationship between role ambiguity and self-efficacybecame non-significant when learning goal orientation was high. Such findings are congruent with a large volume of re-search documenting the positive effects of learning goal orientation (Elliot, 1999). The present study added to this chorusby showing that besides having direct effects on outcome variables, learning goal orientation may also mitigate the negativeeffects of workplace stressors (such as role ambiguity) on important outcome variables.

Contrary to Hypothesis 2, avoiding goal orientation did not moderate the relationship between role ambiguity and self-efficacy. Below we offer a number of speculations to account for the effect (or lack thereof). First, personality may have aweaker effect in a strong—versus weak—situation (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Mischel & Shoda, 1995). Therefore, it is possiblethat when the effect of role ambiguity is strong, it may potentially ‘‘overwrite” the weaker effects of avoiding goal orienta-tion. Second, researchers have suggested that avoiding goal orientation may not be manifest in a uniform manner. For exam-ple, according to Elliot and Sheldon (1998), avoiding goal orientation may be manifest as an active removal or a passiverumination of an undesirable situation. As Elliot and Sheldon (1998) pointed out, ‘‘avoidance goals focused on actively erad-icating an existing negative situation may be less deleterious than those that involve passive rumination” (p. 1294).

In the present study, proving goal orientation failed to moderate the role ambiguity—self-efficacy relationship. Admit-tedly, proving goal orientation is a complex construct, undergirded by an achievement motivation and an avoidance moti-vation (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). When achievement motivation is activated, proving-orientedindividuals evidence intrinsic motivation, persistence of effort, and a sense of self-determination. In contrast, when avoid-ance motivation is activated, proving-oriented individuals evidence fear of challenge, anxiety, a focus on negative informa-tion, and a reduction of effort and attention on task-related activities. These two potentially conflicting motivations helpexplain why empirical research on the effects of proving goal orientation has been inconclusive. It is possible that when roleambiguity is perceived as a threat to success, individuals may be oriented towards an avoidance motivation and demonstratelow self-efficacy. In contrast, when role ambiguity is not linked to fear of failure, individuals may be oriented towards anachievement motivation (VandeWalle et al., 2001). As such, the deleterious effects of role ambiguity may be reduced.

Consistent with Hypothesis 3, we found that procedural justice moderated the relationship between role ambiguity andself-efficacy. Specifically, the relationship between role ambiguity and self-efficacy was significant only when proceduraljustice was high. Our results were consistent with Gilliland (1994) who found that people who were denied a job by a fairprocess reported lower self-efficacy than those who were denied a job by an unfair process. In all, these results were con-sistent with the attribution theory. Specifically, role ambiguity may have less impact on the self when one can find a situ-ational factor (procedural unfairness) to account for it. In the absence of such a situational factor, one can but internalize roleambiguity and attribute it to one’s lack of abilities.

It is worth noting that our predictions and results, albeit consistent with the attributional perspective, may seem incon-sistent with existing research reporting the interactive effects of procedural justice and negative outcomes. For example,according to the demand-control model, justice functions as a control mechanism, buffering the detrimental effects of work-place stressors on subsequent outcomes (Elovainio, Kivimäki, & Helkama, 2001; Greenberg, 2006; Karasek, 1979). Similarly,according to the process effect model, people may react less negatively to unfavorable outcomes when the process is fair(Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996). One plausible explanation for these divergent findings is the different outcome variables un-der examination. Specifically, fair procedures may have a positive effect on the evaluations of the outcome, but a detrimentaleffect on self-evaluations. This reasoning is consistent with Brockner and Wiesenfeld (1996), who argued that the interactiveeffects of procedural justice and negative outcomes may have differential impact on the evaluations of the self relative to theevaluation of other non-self relevant outcomes.

5.1. Limitations

It is important to note some of the limitations of our study. First, this study proceeds with the assumption that self-effi-cacy is one possible outcome of role ambiguity. Although this argument is consistent with past research on the construct ofrole ambiguity (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964), nevertheless given the cross-sectional design of this study,caution should be exercised when inferring causality among variables. For example, it is possible that highly efficacious indi-viduals may seek opportunities to clarify their job requirements. As such, they may experience a lower level of role ambi-guity. Alternatively, self-efficacy may function as a psychological buffer, reducing the pernicious effect of role ambiguity.Second, the use of self-report measures may raise concerns about common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee,& Podsakoff, 2003). However, since our chief finding is the interaction effects, common method variance may be less of a

374 A. Li, J. Bagger / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 368–375

concern. In other words, common method variance can not explain why the relationship between role ambiguity and self-efficacy varied as a function of the level of learning goal orientation and procedural justice. Third, the reliability coefficientfor the self-efficacy scale was relatively low. Given the central role that self-efficacy played in the present study, it is recom-mended that future investigations replicate our findings with a more psychometrically sound measure.

5.2. Implications for research

As discussed earlier concerning avoiding goal orientation, one possible explanation for the results is that the situation(role ambiguity) was so strong that it weakened the effects of the personality factor. Future research should use settings withgreater strength variance, which may provide a better test of this hypothesis. Additionally, since avoiding goal orientationhas different manifestations, future research should focus on whether they may have varying effects on the relationship be-tween role ambiguity and self-efficacy. Additionally, in the present study, we used attribution theory as the theoretical basisto predict that in the event of high procedural justice, individuals are more likely to internalize role ambiguity, which maylead to a lower level of self-efficacy (and vice versa, procedural injustice may allow people to externalize role ambiguity,which may reduce its relationship with self-efficacy). However, we did not explicitly test these psychological mechanismsin our study. Future research should attempt to replicate our findings by operationalizing the types of attribution suggestedin our study (e.g., Taggar & Neubert, 2004).

5.3. Implications for practice

The present study also offers a number of practical implications. First, the purpose of this study is not to advocate that roleambiguity is desirable. Rather, our goal is to examine factors that may temper the pernicious effects of role ambiguity whichat times (such as during downsizing or organizational restructuring) may be inevitable. We found that learning-orientedindividuals tended to be less affected by role ambiguity. These results suggest that goal orientation can be used in the screen-ing and selection process, in combination with other selection tools. Additionally, managers may benefit from the presentstudy by considering the role of goal orientation when implementing organizational changes which may lead to a heightenedlevel of role ambiguity. For example, managers might need to pay more attention to individuals who are low on learning goalorientation who may be particularly vulnerable to role ambiguity.

Second, we also found that role ambiguity tended to be related to self-efficacy when procedural justice was high. Our ear-lier theoretical discussion pointed to the role of attribution as the mechanism that may drive these effects. As Schroth andPradhan Shah (2000) pointed out, individuals tend to attribute negative outcomes to the self when procedural justice is high.Of course, we are not advocating that managers should treat employees unfairly in order to minimize the impact of roleambiguity. Rather, we suggest that managers be sensitive not to overemphasize the fairness of procedures, when the levelof role ambiguity is high (as this may imply that employees have no one but themselves to blame, which may reduce theirsense of competencies). Research on attribution theory (Weiner, 1985, 1986) has suggested different attributional dimen-sions (stable versus unstable, controllable versus uncontrollable, etc.). Assisting employees to make the right attributionfor role ambiguity, amid a high level of procedural justice, may go a long way in building their efficacy expectancy.

In conclusion, we found that the relationships between role ambiguity and self-efficacy were moderated by learning goalorientation and procedural justice. These results advance our understanding of the effects of role ambiguity and point tomany new avenues for future research.

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175–1184.Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Beauchamp, M. R., Bray, S. R., Eys, M. A., & Carron, A. V. (2002). Role ambiguity, role efficacy, and role performance. Multidimensional and mediational

relationships within interdependent sport teams. Group Dynamics, 3, 229–242.Bray, S. R., & Brawley, L. R. (2002). Role efficacy, role clarity, and role performance effectiveness. Small Group Research, 33, 233–253.Breaugh, J. A., & Colihan, J. P. (1994). Measuring facets of job ambiguity: Construct validity evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 191–202.Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures.

Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189–208.Chen, G., & Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self- and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 87, 549–556.Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2004). General self-efficacy and self-esteem: Toward theoretical and empirical distinction between correlated self-

evaluations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 375–395.Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.DeShon, R. P., & Gillespie, J. Z. (2005). A motivated action theory account of goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1096–1127.Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1980). An analysis of learned helplessness: (II) The processing of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,

940–952.Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169–189.Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,

218–232.

A. Li, J. Bagger / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 368–375 375

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 70, 461–475.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). Test anxiety and the hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 76, 628–644.

Elliot, A. J., & Sheldon, K. M. (1998). Avoidance personal goals and the personality-illness relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,1282–1299.

Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality &Social Psychology, 82, 804–818.

Elovainio, M., Kivimäki, M., & Helkama, K. (2001). Procedural justice evaluations, job control, and occupational strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,418–424.

Fisher, C. D., & Gitelson, R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the correlates of role conflict and ambiguity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 320–333.Gilliland, S. W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 691–701.Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183–211.Greenberg, J. (2006). Losing sleep over organizational injustice. Attenuating insomniac reactions to underpayment inequity with supervisory training in

interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 58–69.Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 16–78.Jex, S. M., & Gudanowski, D. M. (1992). Efficacy beliefs and work stress: An exploratory study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 509–517.Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262–279.Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.Karasek, R. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–308.Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.Masterson, S. S. (2001). A trickle-down model of organizational justice. Relating employees’ and customers’ perceptions of and reactions to fairness. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 86, 594–604.Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in

personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246–268.Ployhart, R. E., & Ryan, A. M. (1997). Toward and explanation of applicant reactions: An examination of organizational justice and attribution frameworks.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72, 308–335.Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and

recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., & Holt, K. (1985). Maintaining consistency between self-serving beliefs and available data: A bias in information evaluation.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 179–190.Rizzo, J., House, R., & Lirtzman, S. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150–163.Schroth, H. A., & Pradhan Shah, P. (2000). Procedures: Do we really want to know them? An examination of the effects of procedural justice on self-esteem.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 462–471.Taggar, S., & Neubert, M. (2004). The impact of poor performers on team outcomes: An empirical examination of Attribution Theory. Personnel Psychology,

57, 935–968.Tubre, T. C., & Collins, J. M. (2000). Jackson and Schuler (1985) revisited: A meta-analysis of the relationships between role ambiguity, role conflict, and job

performance. Journal of Management, 26, 155–169.Van Yperen, N. W., & Janssen, O. (2002). Fatigued and dissatisfied or fatigued but satisfied? Goal orientations and responses to high job demands. Academy of

Management Journal, 45, 1161–1171.VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57,

995–1015.VandeWalle, D., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. J. (2001). The role of goal orientation following performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 629–640.Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 4, 548–573.Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.