Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2025 Nov 14;98(2):521–534. doi: 10.1002/jad.70079

The Big Five, Life Satisfaction, and Job Identity Development: A Longitudinal Study on the School‐to‐Work Transition

Kai Hatano 1,✉, Shogo Hihara 2, Kazumi Sugimura 3, Jun Nakahara 4, Megumi Ikeda 5, Satoshi Tanaka 4, Oana Negru‐Subtirica 6
PMCID: PMC12894472  PMID: 41235447

ABSTRACT

Introduction

The school‐to‐work transition presents a crucial period in young adults' identity development, during which the formation of a job identity becomes a key developmental task. However, job identity development during this transition and the individual traits that predict it remain unexplored. This study aimed to examine job identity development among Japanese youth during their first year of employment and investigate whether the Big Five personality traits and life satisfaction during university predicted job identity after entering the workforce.

Methods

Participants included 397 young Japanese adults (M age = 22.19, SDage = 0.97; 79.3% women). The first survey was conducted in January 2022 (when all participants were university students), with follow‐up surveys conducted in August to September 2022 and March 2023 (when all participants were employed). The Big Five personality traits and life satisfaction were measured at Time 1, and job identity was assessed at Times 2 and 3.

Results

A latent change score model revealed a significant decrease in the mean level of in‐depth exploration of job identity over time. Changes related to commitment, in‐depth exploration, and reconsideration of commitment displayed significant variance. Extraversion positively predicted commitment level, agreeableness negatively predicted changes in in‐depth exploration, and neuroticism positively predicted reconsideration of commitment. Life satisfaction positively predicted both commitment and in‐depth exploration levels, and negatively predicted change in commitment.

Conclusion

These findings provide insights into the individual differences that predict job identity development during the school‐to‐work transition and deepen the understanding of job identity formation during young adulthood.

Keywords: Big Five traits, first job, Japan, job identity, life satisfaction

1. Introduction

Young adulthood represents a critical period for identity development (Arnett 2004; Erikson 1968). In countries where the rate of progression to higher education is rising, many young people complete their education and enter the workforce around the age of 22 years (Côté 2016; Kroger and Marcia 2011). During the school‐to‐work transition, job identity becomes particularly important as young adults adapt to the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral demands of their workplace roles (Arnett et al. 2014; Pratt and Matsuba 2018). As they meet their professional role expectations, they gradually develop job identity (Fadjukoff et al. 2005). Young adults with a clear sense of job identity tend to experience higher job satisfaction, greater work engagement, and lower levels of psychological exhaustion than those without a clear sense of job identity (Crocetti et al. 2014; Hatano et al. 2023). Therefore, fostering job identity development has implications for career counseling and workplace adaptation.

While cross‐sectional research has examined job identity, longitudinal research on young adults' job identity development is lacking. During the school‐to‐work transition period, when youths are employed for a few months to a year, they are at risk of experiencing reality shocks regarding their jobs (e.g., Dean 1983; Wang et al. 2024). Therefore, whether job identity changes progressively or regresses must be determined. Evidence of job identity development in this rapidly changing environment is essential to inform clinical support to young adults. Furthermore, evidence regarding individual differences that predict job identity development is lacking. Providing insights into how young adults develop a healthy job identity during university is crucial for the adaptive school‐to‐work transition (Branje et al. 2021). To address these gaps, this study aimed to examine (1) job identity development and (2) the effects of personality traits and life satisfaction at graduation on job identity development during the first year of employment in Japan.

1.1. Job Identity Development

In Erikson's psychosocial development theory, an identity crisis begins a developmental process in which individuals resolve the conflict between identity synthesis and confusion from adolescence to young adulthood. Identity refers to the coherent sense of self. When this sense is fragmented or inconsistent, it can lead to identity confusion (Erikson 1968). Marcia (1966) highlighted two key components of identity development: exploration—the active search for values, beliefs, and goals forming identity and commitment—and the adoption of identity‐defining options discovered through this search. Building on Marcia's work, Crocetti and Meeus proposed a model that encompasses three identity processes (Crocetti et al. 2008; Crocetti 2017): commitment, reflecting engagement with identity‐related values, beliefs, and goals; in‐depth exploration, which deepens commitment through information gathering and discussion with others; and reconsideration of commitment, involving questioning and potentially abandoning current commitments in favor of exploring new ones. While commitment reflects a stable and coherent sense of self, reconsideration of commitment indicates identity fragmentation and disconnection. In‐depth exploration can be a double‐edged sword as it reflects a deepening of the current commitment and heightened anxiety in some cases. Within this dynamic, commitment and in‐depth exploration, as well as reconsideration, are conceptualized as opposing forces. Although commitment and in‐depth exploration imply attempts to develop and maintain a sense of self (i.e., identity coherence or synthesis), reconsideration represents questioning and rethinking this sense of self (identity confusion) (Crocetti 2017). From the Eriksonian perspective (Schwartz et al. 2009), healthy identity development involves finding an optimal balance between synthesis and confusion—that is, a predominance of synthesis over confusion. Thus, identity synthesis and identity confusion are not on a continuum; they are separate but coexist within the same person (Marcia 2002).

Identity involves a consistent sense of self across multiple life domains, such as ideology, parent–child relationships, and friendships (Grotevant 1987). The domains critical to overall identity development vary by life stage (e.g., Camia et al. 2022; Goossens 2001), and identity development can differ across domains. For example, an individual may have a well‐developed educational identity but simultaneous confusion in interpersonal relationships (Hatano et al. 2020). Thus, focusing on developmentally relevant domains is essential for understanding young adult identity development.

For most university graduates, the job represents a central domain of identity, influencing self‐definition and well‐being (Bowling et al. 2010; Crocetti et al. 2014). As individuals transition into professional roles and navigate associated demands and responsibilities, they begin forming job identity (Mancini et al. 2015). Some develop a healthy job identity by increasing commitment, making proactive efforts to deepen that commitment (in‐depth exploration), and decreasing the tendency to doubt their current commitment (reconsideration of commitment). In contrast, others struggle to define themselves regarding their job; thus, their commitment may stagnate, and they may remain inclined to reassess their commitment, reflecting unhealthy job identity development.

While research has examined job identity development among high school and university students (e.g., Mancini et al. 2015; Porfeli et al. 2011), studies on young adults already in the workforce remain limited. Job identities of students yet to experience work differ qualitatively from those of employed young adults. Therefore, examining job identity development among recent employees is essential.

Several studies have investigated the development of occupational or job identity in adulthood (e.g., Fadjukoff et al. 2010, 2005, 2016; Pulkkinen and Kokko 2000); however, few have adopted the three‐identity‐process model as their theoretical framework. Crocetti et al. (2014) found Italian tenured teachers had more developed job identities than their nontenured counterparts. Similarly, research on Japanese young adults found that individuals with less mature job identities were in earlier stages of identity formation than those with more established job identities (Hatano et al. 2023). These findings underscore substantial individual differences in job identity development throughout adulthood. However, cross‐sectional designs limit understanding of how job identity evolves, and research on the school‐to‐work transition, which is a crucial life stage, remains limited. Therefore, this study aims to examine the longitudinal development of job identity and provide deeper insights into how job identity forms and changes during the school‐to‐work transition.

1.2. The Big Five Traits and Life Satisfaction as Predictors of Job Identity Development

Which individual differences during the school‐to‐work transition predict healthy job identity development in the workplace? Addressing this question is essential for educators, corporate human resource professionals, and counselors in both university and organizational settings. Theoretically, individuals with abundant psychological resources, including a well‐defined self‐concept and high well‐being, are considered more likely to develop a healthy sense of identity during this critical transition (Côté 2016). Building on this perspective, the present study focuses on two key predictors of identity development: the Big Five personality traits and life satisfaction, both theoretically and empirically linked to identity processes.

1.2.1. Big Five Traits

The Big Five traits and identity processes represent distinct yet interrelated layers of the self, each central to personality development (McAdams and Olson 2010; McAdams and Zapata‐Gietl 2015). The Big Five traits—neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Goldberg 1993)—constitute the dispositional core of personality, providing a stable foundation for interpreting experiences and constructing a sense of self over time. Within this personality framework, identity processes, as conceptualized in the three‐factor identity process model, capture self‐reflective and agentic efforts to explore, commit to, and revise life goals and roles (Crocetti et al. 2008). While personality traits reflect “what one has,” identity processes represent “what one does” in actively constructing the self (Luyckx et al. 2014). Awareness of one's own traits can catalyze the resolution of an identity crisis through engagement in exploration and commitment. Although conceptually distinct, these layers are theoretically intertwined and reciprocally influential across the life course (McAdams and Zapata‐Gietl 2015).

Each Big Five trait may differentially shape individuals' engagement in identity processes. For example, neuroticism—characterized by emotional instability, vulnerability to stress, and heightened sensitivity to uncertainty—may hinder the formation of strong commitments and increase the likelihood of persistent reconsideration, as individuals struggle with self‐doubt and alternative life options (Caspi et al. 2005; Crocetti et al. 2008). In contrast, extraversion, reflecting social engagement and positive affectivity (Costa and McCrae 1992), may facilitate identity development by promoting active commitment formation and in‐depth exploration through social feedback and interpersonal experiences (Klimstra, Luyckx, Goossens et al. 2013). Openness to experience, involving cognitive flexibility and novelty‐seeking (McCrae and John 1992), may encourage deeper engagement in identity exploration and reconsideration, particularly in the pursuit of authenticity or self‐congruence (Crocetti et al. 2008). Agreeableness, defined by interpersonal warmth and concern for others (Wiggins 1979), supports identity development via harmonious social relationships. These interactions may reinforce existing commitments and encourage further exploration within selected domains (Erikson 1950; Crocetti et al. 2008; Klimstra, Luyckx, Goossens et al. 2013). Conscientiousness, marked by goal‐directedness, self‐discipline, and long‐term planning (Caspi et al. 2005), facilitates consolidation of identity commitments through stable goal pursuit and deliberate, purposeful exploration (Crocetti et al. 2008). Taken together, these theoretical perspectives suggest that the Big Five traits, as foundational characteristics of the self, shape how individuals approach identity‐relevant challenges, including uncertainty, social relationships, and long‐term goal pursuit. In this way, Big Five traits may guide the direction and quality of identity development over time.

Empirically, few studies directly examine Big Five traits as predictors of identity processes in young adulthood. Klimstra et al. (2012) investigated the reciprocal associations between Big Five traits and educational identity processes among college students, finding that neuroticism and commitment had bidirectional associations, whereas extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness positively predicted commitment and in‐depth exploration. Extending this line of inquiry, Klimstra, Luyckx, Branje et al. (2013) examined interpersonal identity processes among college students and found that neuroticism positively predicted commitment reconsideration, while commitment negatively predicted agreeableness across both genders and positively predicted it among men. Although these findings support a reciprocal association, they consistently show stronger predictive effects from traits to identity processes, suggesting that the Big Five traits function as antecedents of identity development (McAdams and Zapata‐Gietl 2015).

Building on this theoretical and empirical foundation, the present study investigates whether the Big Five traits predict changes in job identity during the early career period.

1.2.2. Life Satisfaction

According to Erikson (1968) theoretical framework, identity serves a crucial self‐regulatory function: optimal resolution of identity crises provides a coherent sense of identity, enabling meaningful life choices, fostering a sense of control, and connecting past experiences with future goals (Adams and Marshall 1996). Well‐consolidated identity promotes adaptive behaviors and psychological adjustment (Hatano et al. 2018). Adolescents and young adults with well‐developed identity report higher life satisfaction (Crocetti et al. 2013). Simultaneously, it is theoretically plausible that well‐being—particularly life satisfaction—plays a role in shaping identity development. Life satisfaction, defined as a positive cognitive evaluation of overall life circumstances (Diener et al. 1999), may serve as a psychological resource supporting adaptive identity exploration and commitment. Sustained life satisfaction may equip individuals with the psychological security and confidence needed to confront identity‐related challenges proactively (Côté 2016).

Although theorized bidirectionally, empirical evidence is limited. Several cross‐sectional and longitudinal studies have demonstrated a positive link between identity commitment and life satisfaction (Crocetti et al. 2013; Hatano et al. 2020; Karaś and Cieciuch 2018). However, to date, only one study directly examines the directionality of this relationship, finding mutual prediction between educational and interpersonal identity commitments and subjective well‐being—including life satisfaction (De Lise et al. 2024). Thus, life satisfaction may not only result from identity development but also actively contribute to it.

Nevertheless, existing research has primarily focused on educational or interpersonal identity domains, leaving job identity largely unexplored. Despite theoretical support, no studies have directly examined the relationship between life satisfaction and job identity among employed young adults.

1.3. School‐to‐Work Transition in Japan

The impact of the school‐to‐work transition on psychological functioning among young people is strongly related to national education and labor systems (Côté 2016; Negru‐Subtirica 2024). In the United States and Europe, job hunting, employment, and internships are flexible, potentially reducing gaps between expectations and reality during the transition from school to work (Quintini and Manfredi 2009). In Japan, however, companies often hire new graduates en masse, offering jobs to students who typically graduate in March and begin working in April (Hatano et al. 2023). Recruitment begins in October of their third year, with the job search and offer process lasting approximately 1 year. Many students accept job offers and start working with little or no prior work experience, making the transition from university to employment highly synchronized and rapid. Upon joining the company, new employees are trained for approximately one to 6 months before joining their business units.

This accelerated transition creates a substantial gap between work expectations and reality, often leading to employment difficulties. Approximately 80% of young employees in Japan experience shock during the first few months of employment (Persol research and consulting and Persol career 2019), with 30% leaving their jobs within the first 3 years (Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare 2024). The reality shock typically occurs within the first 3–6 months (e.g., Dean 1983; Wang et al. 2024), making this period critical for understanding job identity development among new employees. Over time, employees adjust, cultivate a sense of responsibility, and adapt to their occupational roles. Examining this critical period and the influence of the Big Five traits and life satisfaction enhances understanding of individual differences in healthy job identity development.

1.4. The Present Study

Research on the school‐to‐work transition has focused primarily on adolescents, such as high school or university students, leaving limited evidence on job identity development in early careers. Moreover, which university students successfully develop a healthy job identity postemployment remains unclear. To address these research gaps, the present study investigates job identity development and the effects of the Big Five traits and life satisfaction during university on postemployment job identity development.

This study examines the development of work identity at 6 months and 1 year after employment, a period during which young adults likely experience a reality shock. By this stage, many are expected to have recovered from the shock and adapted to their workplaces, resulting in increased commitment and in‐depth exploration, and decreased reconsideration of commitment (Hypothesis 1). Some young adults may continue experiencing reality shock, leading to nonprogressive changes in their job identity; thus, variance in identity process changes is expected (Hypothesis 2).

This study further examines whether the Big Five traits and life satisfaction at graduation influence job identity development after entering employment. Neuroticism is expected to predict low levels and changes in commitment and high levels and changes in reconsideration of commitment. Extraversion is expected to predict high levels and changes in commitment and in‐depth exploration. Openness is expected to predict high levels and changes in in‐depth exploration and reconsideration of commitment. Agreeableness and conscientiousness are expected to predict high levels and changes in commitment and in‐depth exploration (Hypothesis 3). Furthermore, high life satisfaction is predicted to be associated with high levels and changes in commitment and in‐depth exploration, but low levels and changes in reconsideration of commitment (Hypothesis 4).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The data for this study were obtained from the University to Work Transitions Research Project (UWTRP), which focuses on the university‐to‐workforce transition. This project involved a longitudinal follow‐up survey of students who received job offers. The first survey (T1) was conducted in January 2022, with follow‐up surveys conducted from August to September 2022 (T2) and in March 2023 (T3). The number of participants at each time point was as follows: 1,538 at T1 (M age = 22.24 years, SDage = 1.01; 76.1% women); 397 at T2 (M age = 22.82 years, SDage = 0.99; 79.3% women); and 200 at T3 (M age = 23.31 years, SDage = 0.81; 78.5% women). All participants graduated from university and were employed by T2 and T3 (see Tables S1 and S2 for details on the academic major and business sector). Of the participants, 42.0%, 20.6%, and 16.7% resided in the relatively urban Kanto, Kansai, and Chubu regions, respectively, while the remaining participants lived in less urbanized areas, such as Hokkaido, Tohoku, Chugoku, Shikoku, and Kyushu. Household income was categorized into low (< 2 million JPY, 11.3%), middle (2–8 million JPY, 21.8%), high (> 8 million JPY, 21.1%), and unknown (45.8%) groups.

To minimize estimation errors, only data from participants who responded at least twice were included in the final analysis (Shaw et al. 2003). The final sample comprised 397 young adults (M age = 22.19 years, SDage = 0.97; 79.3% women).

2.2. Missing Data

χ 2 tests were conducted to determine gender and residence differences between respondents who completed all survey waves and those who did not. No significant differences in gender (χ 2 (1, N = 1548) = 0.728, p = 0.393, Cramer's V = 0.022) or region of residence (χ 2 (7, N = 1548) = 8.447, p = 0.295, Cramer's V = 0.074) were found.

T‐tests were conducted to assess the effects of attrition. For the Big Five traits and life satisfaction, the scores of those who responded to all surveys (n = 200) and those who did not (n = 1348) were compared. For job identity, the scores of those who responded to T2 and T3 (n = 200) and those who responded to only one of the two surveys (n = 197) were compared. The effect sizes were small for all variables: neuroticism (t(248) = 0.075, p = 0.940, d = 0.01); extraversion (t(1546) = 2.175, p = 0.030, d = 0.17); openness (t(1546) = 2.550, p = 0.011, d = 0.19); agreeableness (t(1546) = 1.173, p = 0.051, d = 0.09); conscientiousness (t(1546) = 0.7483, p = 0.629, d = 0.04); life satisfaction (t(1546) = 0.550, p = 0.583, d = 0.04); commitment (t(395) = 0.620, p = 0.536, d = 0.06); in‐depth exploration (t(395) = 0.1.496, p = 0.135, d = 0.15); and reconsideration of commitment (t(395) = 0.1.573, p = 0.117, d = 0.16).

Little (1988) test for missing completely at random was conducted on the variables of interest, yielding a normed χ 2 (χ 2/df) of 1.386. Following this criterion (χ 2/df < 3; Bollen 1989), the data were approximately missing at random. The maximum likelihood robust estimation method was employed to handle missing data (Satorra and Bentler 2001).

2.3. Procedure

Data were collected through the online research company MACROMILL (https://group.macromill.com; http://www.kcsf.co.jp/p=home). The eligibility criteria for participants at T1 were as follows: expected to graduate in the spring of 2022, anticipated to work for a private company, and registered on an online research platform. A total of 276,264 eligible young adults were invited to participate in the T1 survey. All T1 participants were invited to join follow‐up surveys. An email containing a link to the web‐based survey was sent to those who agreed to participate. Participants received 40 JPY (approximately 0.28 USD) as reward points for each completed survey. All the participants provided informed consent before completing the questionnaire. This study was approved by the formal Institutional Review Board, with the project title withheld for blind review.

3. Measures

3.1. Big Five Traits

The Big Five traits were measured using the short version of the Big Five Inventory‐2 (Soto and John 2017). The Japanese version is available at https://situationslab.squarespace.com/big-five-inventory-2. The traits of neuroticism (e.g., “Worries a lot”), extraversion (e.g., “Is full of energy”), openness (e.g., “Is fascinated by art, music, or literature”), agreeableness (e.g., “Assumes the best about people”), and conscientiousness (e.g., “Is reliable, can always be counted on”) were each assessed using six items. These items were rated on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely untrue) to 5 (completely true).

3.2. Life Satisfaction

Life satisfaction was measured using the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al. 1999), with the Japanese version available at https://labs.psychology.illinois.edu/~ediener/SWLS.html. This scale consists of five items rated on a 7‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely untrue) to 7 (completely true). A sample item is: “In most ways, my life is close to my ideal.”

3.3. Job Identity

Job identity was measured using the 13‐item Utrecht Management of Identity Commitments Scale (U‐MICS; Crocetti et al. 2008; see Hatano et al. 2023, 2016 for the Japanese version). This scale assesses three dimensions of job identity: commitment, in‐depth exploration, and reconsideration of commitment. Commitment (e.g., “My job gives me certainty in life”) and in‐depth exploration (e.g., “I think a lot about my job”) were measured with 5 items each, while reconsideration of commitment was assessed with 3 items (e.g., “I often think it would be better to try to find a different job”). Participants rated these items on a five‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely untrue) to 5 (completely true).

3.4. Statistical Analyses

Descriptive statistics were computed using SPSS version 25.0. Structural equation modeling analyses were performed using M‐plus 8.4 (Muthén and Muthén 1998–2012). Measurement invariance tests were conducted to ensure the comparability of job identity measures across different time points. The standard procedure for testing measurement invariance included (a) configural invariance, confirming that the factor structure and patterns of parameters were consistent across time; (b) metric invariance, ensuring that factor loadings were equivalent across time and indicating that respondents understood the constructs similarly at each time point; (c) scalar invariance, testing whether factor loadings and item intercepts were equal across time points; and (d) strict invariance, testing whether factor loadings, item intercepts, and residual variances were equal across time points.

Model fit was assessed using thresholds commonly considered acceptable (Kline 2015): a comparative fit index (CFI) > 0.90 and a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root mean‐square residual (SRMR) < 0.08. To compare different model fits, the Satorra–Bentler χ 2 difference test (S‐Bχ 2) was used, along with changes in CFI (ΔCFI), RMSEA (ΔRMSEA), and SRMR (ΔSRMR). If the following criteria were exceeded, the null hypothesis of invariance was rejected: significant changes in S‐Bχ 2 at p < 0.05, ΔCFI ≥ 0.010, ΔRMSEA ≥ 0.015, and ΔSRMR ≥ 0.030 (Byrne 2012; Kline 2015).

Two main analyses were conducted to address the study objectives. First, a latent change score model (LCM) was applied to assess intraindividual changes in job identity and their variance over time (Haberecht et al. 2015; Steyer et al. 1997). In this model, the initial value of job identity at the first measurement point (T2) was included as a latent variable, and a change factor representing the difference in job identity between the first and second measurement points (T2 and T3) was incorporated. This change factor accounts for interindividual differences in intraindividual changes in job identity over time. Factor loadings, measurement intercepts, and error variances were constrained to be equal across time points. Second, predictors of the initial value of job identity, including the Big Five traits and life satisfaction at T1, were added to the latent‐change model (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Latent change score model with big five traits and life satisfaction.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for the Big Five traits, life satisfaction, and each job identity process. The correlations are presented in Table 2.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics.

University students Workers
January 2022 August to September 2022 March 2023
Time 1 (n = 397) Time 2 (n = 397) Time 3 (n = 200)
Variables M SD α M SD α M SD α
Neuroticism 2.95 0.81 0.79 ― ― ― ― ― ―
Extraversion 2.77 0.72 0.72 ― ― ― ― ― ―
Openness 2.99 0.68 0.66 ― ― ― ― ― ―
Agreeableness 3.58 0.67 0.75 ― ― ― ― ― ―
Conscientiousness 3.29 0.65 0.67 ― ― ― ― ― ―
Life satisfaction 4.18 1.16 0.81 ― ― ― ― ― ―
Commitment ― ― ― 2.98 0.81 0.80 3.07 0.74 0.75
In‐depth exploration ― ― ― 3.20 0.69 0.65 3.09 0.67 0.65
Reconsideration of commitment ― ― ― 2.98 0.87 0.61 2.96 0.82 0.61
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: M = mean, SD = standard deviation, α = Cronbach's α coefficient.

Table 2.

Correlations among the variables.

Variables 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
  • 1.
    T1 N
 −0.26*** 0.02 −0.39*** −0.41*** −0.43*** −0.23*** −0.18*** 0.11* −0.23** −0.14* 0.18**
  • 2.
    T1 E
 ― 0.17** 0.18*** 0.28*** 0.26*** 0.25*** 0.17*** 0.05 0.22** 0.13 0.03
  • 3.
    T1 O
 ― 0.13* 0.12* 0.12* 0.03 0.08 0.11* 0.14 0.09 −0.11
  • 4.
    T1 A
 ― 0.57*** −0.26*** 0.09 0.22*** −0.02 −0.02 0.10 −0.11
  • 5.
    T1 C
 ― 0.25*** 0.12* 0.18*** −0.03 0.07 0.19** −0.14
  • 6.
    T1 LS
 ― 0.36*** 0.28*** 0.00 0.31*** 0.21** −0.17*
  • 7.
    T2 Com
 ― 0.52*** −0.01 0.51*** 0.36*** −0.02
  • 8.
    T2 InD
 ― 0.15** 0.32*** 0.35*** 0.07
  • 9.
    T2 RC
 ― −0.10 0−.02 0.33***
  • 10.
    T3 Com
 ― 0.55*** −0.11
  • 11.
    T3 InD
 ― 0.01
  • 12.
    T3 RC
 ―
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: A, agreeableness; C, conscientiousness; Com, commitment; E, extraversion; InD, in‐depth exploration; N, neuroticism; O, openness; RC, reconsideration of commitment; T1, time 1; T2, time 2.

*

p < 0.05

**

p < 0.01

***

p < 0.001.

4.2. Measurement Invariance Test

The results of the measurement‐invariance tests are presented in Table S3. Full strict invariance was established for all job identity processes.

4.3. Latent Change Score Modeling

LCM was conducted for each identity process to assess job identity changes and variances. The model fit indices generally met the accepted criteria for adequacy: commitment, S‐Bχ 2(42) = 98.355, CFI = 0.907, RMSEA = 0.065, 90% CI: RMSEA = [0.049–0.080], SRMR = 0.068; in‐depth exploration, S‐Bχ 2(42) = 78.050, CFI = 0.861, RMSEA = 0.053, 90% CI: RMSEA = [0.036–0.069], SRMR = 0.076; and reconsideration of commitment, S‐Bχ 2(12) = 42.392, CFI = 0.837, RMSEA = 0.097, 90% CI: RMSEA = [0.069–0.127], SRMR = 0.079. Table 3 presents the job identity process levels and changes. The mean levels of all identity processes were statistically significant. The mean score for in‐depth exploration decreased significantly over time. Additionally, changes in commitment and in‐depth exploration displayed significant variance.

Table 3.

Levels and changes for the three latent change score models.

Mean p value Variance p value
Commitment
Level 2.98 < 0.001 0.47 < 0.001
Change 0.07 0.17 0.32 < 0.001
In‐depth exploration
Level 3.13 < 0.001 0.37 < 0.001
Change −0.14 0.02 0.21 0.00
Reconsideration of commitment
Level 2.98 < 0.001 0.94 < 0.001
Change −0.06 0.48 0.19 0.29
Open in a new tab

These results do not support Hypothesis 1, as job identity commitment and in‐depth exploration did not increase; however, the results partially support Hypothesis 2, as the variance of all changes in the identity process was significant.

4.4. Big Five Traits and Life Satisfaction With Latent Change Score Modeling

LCMs were employed to investigate the effects of the Big Five personality traits and life satisfaction on job identity development processes. Each model incorporated the Big Five traits and life satisfaction as predictors with job identity levels and changes as outcome variables. The model fit generally satisfied the accepted thresholds for adequacy: commitment, S‐Bχ 2(85) = 155.481, CFI = 0.911, RMSEA = 0.046, 90% CI: RMSEA = [0.034–0.057], SRMR = 0.059; in‐depth exploration, S‐Bχ 2(85) = 143.760, CFI = 0.840, RMSEA = 0.042, 90% CI: RMSEA = [0.030–0.053], SRMR = 0.065; and reconsideration of commitment, S‐Bχ 2(33) = 81.719, CFI = 0.799, RMSEA = 0.061, 90% CI: RMSEA = [0.044–0.078], SRMR = 0.069.

Tables 4, 5, 6 summarize the relationships among the Big Five traits, life satisfaction, and levels and changes in each job identity development process. Extraversion (β = 0.18, p = 0.001) and life satisfaction (β = 0.21, p < 0.001) were positively associated with levels of commitment. Life satisfaction showed a negative relationship with changes in commitment (β = −0.11, p = 0.044). Life satisfaction was positively associated with the level of in‐depth explorations (β = 0.14, p < 0.001). Agreeableness was negatively associated with changes in in‐depth exploration (β = −0.21, p = 0.040). Reconsideration of commitment was positively related to neuroticism (β = 0.19, p = 0.011).

Table 4.

Standardized path coefficients from big five traits and life satisfaction on commitment.

Level Change
β SE p value [LLCI, ULCI] β SE p value [LLCI, ULCI]
Neuroticism −0.065 0.060 0.283 [−0.18, 0.05] −0.078 0.091 0.393 [−0.26, 0.10]
Extraversion 0.184 0.055 0.001 [0.08, 0.29] −0.091 0.081 0.257 [−0.25, 0.07]
Openness −0.026 0.061 0.670 [−0.15, 0.09] 0.134 0.083 0.108 [−0.03, 0.30]
Agreeableness −0.055 0.078 0.482 [−0.21, 0.10] −0.161 0.111 0.147 [−0.38, 0.06]
Conscientiousness −0.009 0.075 0.906 [−0.16, 0.14] −0.045 0.099 0.651 [−0.24, 0.15]
Life satisfaction 0.205 0.039 < 0.001 [0.13, 0.28] −0.107 0.053 0.044 [−0.211, −0.003]
Open in a new tab

Note: Bold values indicate statistically significant results at p < 0.05.

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; LLCI, ULCI, 95% lower limit and upper limit confidence interval; SE, standard error.

Table 5.

Standardized path coefficients from big five traits and life satisfaction on in‐depth exploration.

Level Change
β SE p value [LLCI, ULCI] β SE p value [LLCI, ULCI]
Neuroticism −0.019 0.055 0.735 [−0.13, 0.09] 0.059 0.089 0.508 [−0.12, 0.23]
Extraversion 0.046 0.054 0.396 [−0.06, 0.15] 0.008 0.083 0.927 [−0.16, 0.17]
Openness 0.014 0.058 0.814 [−0.10, 0.13] 0.016 0.079 0.836 [−0.14, 0.17]
Agreeableness 0.139 0.074 0.058 [−0.01, 0.28] −0.210 0.102 0.040 [−0.41, −0.01]
Conscientiousness 0.062 0.082 0.449 [−0.10, 0.22] 0.203 0.111 0.068 [−0.02, 0.42]
Life satisfaction 0.140 0.040 < 0.001 [0.06, 0.22] −0.075 0.055 0.170 [−0.18, 0.03]
Open in a new tab

Note: Bold values indicate statistically significant results at p < 0.05.

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; LLCI, ULCI, 95% lower limit and upper limit confidence interval; SE, standard error.

Table 6.

Standardized path coefficients from big five traits and life satisfaction on commitment reconsideration.

Level Change
β SE p value [LLCI, ULCI] β SE p value [LLCI, ULCI]
Neuroticism 0.187 0.074 0.011 [0.04, 0.33] −0.023 0.098 0.813 [−0.22, 0.17]
Extraversion 0.089 0.086 0.298 [−0.08, 0.26] 0.042 0.100 0.677 [−0.22, 0.24]
Openness 0.081 0.086 0.350 [−0.09, 0.25] −0.199 0.102 0.050 [−0.40, 0.00]
Agreeableness 0.059 0.106 0.580 [−0.15, 0.27] −0.073 0.124 0.557 [−0.32, 0.17]
Conscientiousness −.044 0.107 0.678 [−0.25, 0.17] 0.015 0.122 0.901 [−0.22, 0.26]
Life satisfaction 0.007 0.055 0.897 [−0.10, 0.11] −0.080 0.058 0.162 [−0.19, 0.03]
Open in a new tab

Note: Bold values indicate statistically significant results at p < 0.05.

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; LLCI, ULCI, 95% lower limit and upper limit confidence interval; SE, standard error.

To visually demonstrate the associations between changes in life satisfaction and commitment and changes in in‐depth exploration and agreeableness, Figures 2 and 3 illustrate z‐score changes in job identity processes. Regarding commitment and life satisfaction, the z‐score for commitment shifted from −0.34 to −0.27, −0.19 to 0.01, and 0.37 to 0.45 in the low‐, middle‐, and high‐life satisfaction groups, respectively. Regarding in‐depth exploration and agreeableness, the z‐score for in‐depth exploration changed from −0.24 to −0.10, −0.01 to −0.05, and 0.08 to 0.19 in the low‐, middle‐, and high‐agreeableness groups, respectively.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Change in z‐score for commitment based on life satisfaction.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Change in z‐score for in‐depth exploration based on agreeableness.

These results partially support Hypothesis 3, which states that conscientiousness, extraversion and openness, and neuroticism predict commitment, in‐depth exploration, and reconsideration of commitment, respectively. Hypothesis 4, which stated that life satisfaction would positively predict commitment and in‐depth exploration and negatively predict reconsideration of commitment, was also partially supported.

5. Discussion

The school‐to‐work transition represents a significant environmental shift for young adults. In Japan, this transition is particularly challenging, as young adults often enter the workforce with limited practical experience and face considerable social pressure. Therefore, the first year of employment, during which many young adults experience reality shocks that may threaten job identity development, is critical. Understanding how job identity develops during this phase and identifying which Big Five traits and levels of life satisfaction during university predict healthy or unhealthy job identity are essential for providing appropriate support. In this study, participants were surveyed during their final year as students, 7–8 months after beginning employment, and 6 months thereafter. LCMs revealed significant individual differences in the intercepts of commitment, in‐depth exploration, and reconsideration of commitment, as well as in changes in commitment and in‐depth exploration. Furthermore, the Big Five traits and life satisfaction during university were significant predictors of job identity formation. These findings suggest a developmental relationship among the Big Five traits, life satisfaction, and job identity during the school‐to‐work transition in Japan.

5.1. Job Identity Development

Significant changes in mean scores were observed only for in‐depth exploration, suggesting that young adults tend to decrease their engagement in the detailed exploration of their jobs after entering the workforce. In‐depth exploration refers to efforts to learn or think about new aspects of one's job (Crocetti et al. 2008). After completing new employee training, emphasis may shift toward mastering current tasks rather than expanding new possibilities or acquiring additional skills. In contrast, mean changes in commitment and reconsideration of commitment were not significant, suggesting that levels of commitment to and reconsideration of one's job do not necessarily change after the completion of new employee training. These results suggest that young adults may comprise a mix of those who have adapted to work after experiencing reality shock and those who have not. Such differences may reflect the varied expectations young adults hold regarding their jobs, resulting in differing degrees of change in job identity. These patterns will be examined in greater detail by analyzing the variance results.

Changes in commitment and in‐depth exploration displayed significant variance, suggesting individual differences in the evolution of job identity during the early months of employment. Individual differences in these processes highlight that job identity development is not uniform. Given that many young adults in Japan experience a reality shock upon entering the workforce (Persol research and consulting and Persol career 2019), those who find their jobs well‐suited to new employee training may show increases in commitment and in‐depth exploration, whereas those who perceive a poor fit may exhibit a decline. These findings underscore the importance of viewing job identity development not as a homogeneous process but as one shaped by individual differences and external factors such as job fit and reality shock.

In contrast to commitment and in‐depth exploration, the change in reconsideration of commitment was not significant for either mean or variance. This finding suggests that reconsideration of commitment does not change significantly overall and that individual differences may be minimal. Reconsideration of commitment reflects the tendency to quit one's current job and look for another (Crocetti et al. 2008). Given that participants had just started their jobs, they might not yet feel the need to quit or look for another job immediately. However, in Japan, 30% of people quit their jobs within 3 years (Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare 2024); thus, changes in reconsideration of commitment might have become apparent if the study had continued for 1–3 years.

5.2. The Big Five Traits and Life Satisfaction as Predictors of Job Identity Development

The relationships between the Big Five personality traits, life satisfaction, and job identity development revealed both expected and unexpected findings. Regarding the Big Five, high levels of extraversion during university were associated with higher levels of commitment after 9–10 months of employment. Extraversion is crucial for adaptation to new environments because it reflects positive emotions and effective communication with others (Costa and McCrae 1992; Goldberg 1993). This trait likely enhances an individual's ability to adjust to a new job (Wihler et al. 2017), leading to a stronger commitment to job identity. Conversely, high levels of neuroticism during university were linked to greater reconsideration of commitment after 7–8 months of employment. Unlike extraversion, neuroticism reflects a heightened sensitivity to one's environment and negative emotionality, often indicating adaptation difficulties (Caspi et al. 2005; Pavani et al. 2021). Young adults with high neuroticism may harbor doubts about their job suitability, prompting them to reconsider their commitment to their current position. These findings suggest that extraverted young adults exhibit higher levels of commitment, whereas those high in neuroticism are more prone to question their job fit after entering the workforce.

Contrary to expectations, openness was not associated with in‐depth exploration or reconsideration of commitments. This finding suggests that high levels of curiosity, imagination, and receptiveness to new experiences—that is, openness—do not necessarily lead to deepening one's job commitments (in‐depth exploration) or to actively reconsidering one's current job (reconsideration of commitment). As mentioned regarding the decrease in in‐depth exploration, it may be difficult to actively pursue open‐minded traits or job identity during the early stages of starting a job. This focus on adaptation and stabilization may explain the absence of a significant association between openness and the processes of in‐depth exploration or reconsideration of commitments.

One unexpected finding was the negative correlation between agreeableness and in‐depth exploration. These findings suggest that young adults with high levels of agreeableness at university may engage less in deep exploration, whereas those with lower levels of agreeableness are more likely to engage deeply in their jobs. Two potential explanations for this finding exist. First, agreeableness, characterized by a focus on aligning one's actions and thoughts with those of others (Costa and McCrae 1992; Goldberg 1993), may limit opportunities for in‐depth exploration. New employees high in agreeableness may prioritize fitting in with colleagues over engaging in critical reflection or seeking new information about their work. Meanwhile, those lower in agreeableness might feel freer to explore their work environment without needing to conform. Second, this pattern may reflect the cooperative nature of Japanese culture. Japanese culture is often described as emphasizing both individual assertiveness and cooperation with others (Sugimura 2020). In such a cultural context, highly agreeable young adults may become committed to their job in ways that align with social expectations—such as building harmonious relationships—yet fail to engage in critical reflection on their current roles.

Unexpectedly, conscientiousness was not associated with commitment or in‐depth exploration. Conscientiousness reflects persistence, organization, and goal‐directed planning (Caspi et al. 2005; Goldberg 1993), whereas commitment represents a sense of security derived from one's work, and in‐depth exploration involves strengthening that commitment through information‐seeking and reflection with others (Crocetti et al. 2008). Previous research on newly employed adults has shown positive associations between conscientiousness and both job commitment and in‐depth exploration (e.g., Hatano et al. 2023). Therefore, the absence of such associations among university students suggests potential developmental differences in how Big Five traits relate to identity development processes. Specifically, while conscientious workers may channel their diligence and planning toward consolidating work‐related commitments (Caspi et al. 2005; Goldberg 1993), university students may not yet have fully formed contexts in which these traits manifest as identity investments. This developmental distinction implies that the role of conscientiousness in identity formation may emerge more strongly once individuals enter structured work environments that provide concrete goals and responsibilities.

Regarding the relationship between life satisfaction and job identity processes, a positive relationship was found between life satisfaction during university and commitment and in‐depth exploration after starting work. Moreover, life satisfaction was negatively related to changes in commitment. These findings suggest that life satisfaction is vital in fostering healthy job identity development during the transition to work. Life satisfaction, reflecting a positive evaluation of one's life up to that point, may instill confidence in one's decisions and work choices (Diener et al. 1999), thereby enhancing commitment and exploration after entering the workforce. Interestingly, university students with moderate levels of life satisfaction showed greater variability—specifically, a decline—in their commitment over time (Figure 2). This pattern suggests that while individuals with high or low life satisfaction exhibit more stable and predictable relationships with job commitment, those with moderate life satisfaction may experience fluctuations influenced by situational or contextual factors. For career counselors and related professionals, these findings underscore the importance of providing targeted support to students with moderate life satisfaction, helping them strengthen and maintain their commitment as they navigate the transition from university to work.

5.3. Theoretical and Developmental Implications

These findings have significant developmental implications. First, this study offers important theoretical insights. It demonstrated that the Big Five personality traits predict young adults' level of identity development in the school‐to‐work transition, supporting McAdams and Zapata‐Gietl's (2015) theoretical proposition that the Big Five traits constitute the core of personality and serve as predictors of identity processes. In addition, the finding that life satisfaction promotes identity development lends further support to the hypothesis that well‐being facilitates identity formation (De Lise et al. 2024; Erikson 1950). Together, these findings reinforce the validity of existing frameworks on personality and identity development. Moreover, this study advances theoretical understanding of the school‐to‐work transition by elucidating the interrelations among job identity, personality traits, and life satisfaction during this critical life stage. This focus is particularly important considering Côté (2016) perspective that young adults with greater psychological resources—such as a clear sense of self and higher life satisfaction—are more likely to make healthy transitions into adulthood. By demonstrating how the Big Five traits and life satisfaction are associated with identity development during the school‐to‐work transition, the present study provides a theoretically grounded foundation for understanding the mechanisms that support adaptive development in young adulthood.

Second, we found diversity in job identity development during the first year of employment. The results revealed significant individual differences for changes in commitment and in‐depth exploration of job identity, suggesting that job identity did not develop uniformly during this period. Instead, it appears to vary based on young adults' circumstances, Big Five traits, and life satisfaction. While high school and university students share relatively uniform social circumstances, the diversity in career paths and meaning attributed to work after entering the workforce may lead to distinct job identity trajectories. These findings underscore the importance of recognizing diversity in job identity development.

Third, this study confirms that the Big Five traits and life satisfaction—both consistently linked to multiple identity domains—are related to job identity. Life satisfaction, a key indicator of psychological well‐being, has been repeatedly associated with traits such as extraversion, which predicts positivity and job satisfaction, and neuroticism, which is linked to psychological difficulties and maladjustment (Pavani et al. 2021). Our findings suggest that psychological adjustment and maladjustment, particularly in relation to extraversion, neuroticism, and life satisfaction, are also relevant to job identity development during the school‐to‐work transition in Japan. Future research should further explore the impact of these traits on job identity development.

5.4. Limitations and Future Directions

This study has several limitations. First, the sample consisted disproportionately of women. A more balanced sample of men and women would have allowed for a more nuanced analysis. Future research should aim to gather more representative gender distributions to draw comprehensive conclusions. Second, this study did not examine identity development by job sector. Although participants were employed across a wide range of occupations, job identity development may vary considerably depending on the nature and structure of each profession. For example, medical professionals typically undergo a 2‐year training period, whereas training durations in other fields may be considerably shorter. In addition, the degree of alignment between one's academic major and current occupation may influence the process of work identity formation. Young adults whose university studies closely match their job content may experience smoother or more coherent identity development. Although this study did not explore this issue, future research should examine how academic‐occupational alignment contributes to work identity development. Third, this study focused on the individual identity processes rather than adopting a person‐centered approach that captures the overall configuration of these processes within individuals (Crocetti and Meeus 2015). In reality, individuals simultaneously engage in multiple identity processes to varying degrees, and the balance among these processes may have important implications for psychological functioning and developmental outcomes. Therefore, to develop more nuanced and realistic support strategies, future research should incorporate person‐centered approaches that identify distinct identity profiles based on the combination and balance of these processes. Fourth, this study did not measure or analyze the experience of reality shocks. In Japan, many young adults experience such shocks when they first enter the workforce. However, this study did not assess whether participants experienced this phenomenon. Future research should explore the relationship between the intensity of reality shocks and job identity development, as understanding this dynamic could offer key insights into how individuals adjust to new work environments.

6. Conclusions

The transition from school to the workforce represents a significant environmental change for young adults. In countries such as Japan, where young adults often begin working immediately after graduating from university without sufficient prior experience, many face psychological crises in the form of reality shocks during the early stages of employment. This study aimed to explore the development of job identity and whether the Big Five personality traits and life satisfaction can predict aspects of this development. The LCM results revealed diverse changes in job commitment and in‐depth exploration, indicating that job identity development was not uniform. Moreover, the analysis showed that extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, and life satisfaction predicted the job identity process. These findings provide valuable insights into the individual differences that predict job identity development during the school‐to‐work transition, contributing to a deeper understanding of identity formation during this critical period.

Ethics Statement

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

Table S1: Participants' Majors. Table S2: Business Sectors of the Participants' Employment. Table S3: Measurement Invariance Test Results.

JAD-98-521-s001.docx (69.1KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Dentsu Scholarship Foundation, Tokyo, Japan.

Hatano, K. , Hihara S., Sugimura K., et al. 2025. “The Big Five, Life Satisfaction, and Job Identity Development: A Longitudinal Study on the School‐to‐Work Transition.” Journal of Adolescence 98: 521–534. 10.1002/jad.70079.

Data Availability Statement

This manuscript's data will not be deposited. The data sets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available, but are available from the corresponding author upon a reasonable request. Generative AI and AI‐assisted technologies were used in the writing process to improve the readability and language of the manuscript.

References

  1. Adams, G. R. , and Marshall S. K.. 1996. “A Developmental Social Psychology of Identity: Understanding the Person‐in‐Context.” Journal of Adolescence 19, no. 5: 429–442. 10.1006/jado.1996.0041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnett, J. J. 2004. Emerging Adulthood: The Winding Road From the Late Teens Through the Twenties. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnett, J. J. , Žukauskienė R., and Sugimura K.. 2014. “The New Life Stage of Emerging Adulthood at Ages 18–29 Years: Implications for Mental Health.” Lancet Psychiatry 1, no. 7: 569–576. 10.1016/S2215-0366(14)00080-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bollen, K. 1989. Structural Equations With Latent Variables. Wiley. 10.1002/9781118619179. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bowling, N. A. , Eschleman K. J., and Wang Q.. 2010. “A Meta‐Analytic Examination of the Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Subjective Well‐Being.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 83, no. 4: 915–934. 10.1348/096317909X478557. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Branje, S. , de Moor E. L., Spitzer J., and Becht A. I.. 2021. “Dynamics of Identity Development in Adolescence: A Decade in Review.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 31, no. 4: 908–927. 10.1111/jora.12678. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Byrne, B. M. 2012. Structural Equation Modeling With Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  8. Camia, C. , Motiani S., and Waters T. E. A.. 2022. “On the Way to Adult Identity: An Evaluation of Identity Status and Narrative Identity Models of Development.” Journal of Research in Personality 101: 104304. 10.1016/j.jrp.2022.104304. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Caspi, A. , Roberts B. W., and Shiner R. L.. 2005. “Personality Development: Stability and Change.” Annual Review of Psychology 56: 453–484. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Costa, Jr., P. T. , and McCrae R. R.. 1992. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO‐PI‐R) and the Five Factor Inventory (NEO‐FFI): Professional Manual. Psychological Assessment Resources. [Google Scholar]
  11. Côté, J. E. 2016. “Youth‐Identity Studies: History, Controversies and Future Directions.” In Routledge Handbook of Youth and Young Adulthood (2nd ed.), edited by Furlong A., 367–376. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315753058. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Crocetti, E. 2017. “Identity Formation in Adolescence: The Dynamic of Forming and Consolidating Identity Commitments.” Child Development Perspectives 11, no. 2: 145–150. 10.1111/cdep.12226. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Crocetti, E. , Avanzi L., Hawk S. T., Fraccaroli F., and Meeus W.. 2014. “Personal and Social Facets of Job Identity: A Person‐Centered Approach.” Journal of Business and Psychology 29: 281–300. 10.1007/s10869-013-9313-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Crocetti, E. , Klimstra T. A., Hale W. W., Koot H. M., and Meeus W.. 2013. “Impact of Early Adolescent Externalizing Problem Behaviors on Identity Development In Middle to Late Adolescence: A Prospective 7‐Year Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 42, no. 11: 1745–1758. 10.1007/s10964-013-9924-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Crocetti, E. , and Meeus W.. 2015. “The Identity Statuses: Strengths of a Person‐Centered Approach.” In The Oxford Jandbook of Identity Development, edited by McLean K. C., Syed M., McLean K. C., and Syed M., 97–114. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  16. Crocetti, E. , Rubini M., and Meeus W.. 2008. “Capturing the Dynamics of Identity Formation in Various Ethnic Groups: Development and Validation of a Three‐Dimensional Model.” Journal of Adolescence 31, no. 2: 207–222. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.09.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. De Lise, F. , Luyckx K., and Crocetti E.. 2024. “Identity Matters for Well‐Being: The Longitudinal Associations Between Identity Processes and Well‐Being in Adolescents With Different Cultural Backgrounds.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 53: 910–926. 10.1007/s10964-023-01901-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Dean, R. A. 1983. “Reality Shock: The Link Between Socialisation and Organisational Commitment.” Journal of Management Development 2, no. 3: 55–65. 10.1108/eb051544. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Diener, E. , Suh E. M., Lucas R. E., and Smith H. L.. 1999. “Subjective Well‐Being: Three Decades of Progress.” Psychological Bulletin 125, no. 2: 276–302. 10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Erikson, E. H. 1950. Childhood and Society. Norton. [Google Scholar]
  21. Erikson, E. H. 1968. Identity, Youth and Crisis. W W Norton & Co. [Google Scholar]
  22. Fadjukoff, P. , Kokko K., and Pulkkinen L.. 2010. “Changing Economic Conditions and Identity Formation in Adulthood.” European Psychologist 15: 293–303. 10.1027/1016-9040/a000061. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Fadjukoff, P. , Pulkkinen L., and Kokko K.. 2005. “Identity Processes in Adulthood: Diverging Domains.” Identity 5: 1–20. 10.1207/s1532706xid0501_1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Fadjukoff, P. , Pulkkinen L., and Kokko K.. 2016. “Identity Formation in Adulthood: A Longitudinal Study From Age 27 to 50.” Identity 16: 8–23. 10.1080/15283488.2015.1121820. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Goldberg, L. R. 1993. “The Structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits.” American Psychologist 48, no. 1: 26–34. 10.1037/0003-066x.48.1.26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Goossens, L. 2001. “Global Versus Domain‐Specific Statuses in Identity Research: A Comparison of Two Self‐Report Measures.” Journal of Adolescence 24: 681–699. 10.1006/jado.2001.0438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Grotevant, H. D. 1987. “Toward a Process Model of Identity Formation.” Journal of Adolescent Research 2: 203–222. 10.1177/074355488723003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Haberecht, K. , Schnuerer I., Gaertner B., John U., and Freyer‐Adam J.. 2015. “The Stability of Social Desirability: A Latent Change Analysis.” Journal of Personality 83, no. 4: 404–412. 10.1111/jopy.12112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hatano, K. , Hihara S., Ikeda M., Nakahara J., Tanaka S., and Sugimura K.. 2023. “Workplace Identity Profiles: Associations With Personality Traits and Work Adaptation of Young Japanese Adults.” Journal of Adult Development 30, no. 3: 256–266. 10.1007/s10804-022-09435-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hatano, K. , Sugimura K., and Crocetti E.. 2016. “Looking at the Dark and Bright Sides of Identity Formation: New Insights From Adolescents and Emerging Adults in Japan.” Journal of Adolescence 47: 156–168. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.09.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Hatano, K. , Sugimura K., Crocetti E., and Meeus W. H. J.. 2020. “Diverse‐and‐Dynamic Pathways in Educational and Interpersonal Identity Formation During Adolescence: Longitudinal Links With Psychosocial Functioning.” Child Development 91, no. 4: 1203–1218. 10.1111/cdev.13301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hatano, K. , Sugimura K., and Schwartz S. J.. 2018. “Longitudinal Links Between Identity Consolidation and Psychosocial Problems in Adolescence: Using Bi‐Factor Latent Change and Cross‐Lagged Effect Models.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 47, no. 4: 717–730. 10.1007/s10964-017-0785-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Karaś, D. , and Cieciuch J.. 2018. “The Relationship Between Identity Processes and Well‐Being in Various Life Domains.” Personality and Individual Differences 121: 111–119. 10.1016/j.paid.2017.09.027. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Klimstra, T. A. , Luyckx K., Branje S., Teppers E., Goossens L., and Meeus W. H.. 2013. “Personality Traits, Interpersonal Identity, and Relationship Stability: Longitudinal Linkages in Late Adolescence and Young Adulthood.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 42: 1661–1673. 10.1007/s10964-012-9862-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Klimstra, T. A. , Luyckx K., Germeijs V., Meeus W. H. J., and Goossens L.. 2012. “Personality Traits and Educational Identity Formation in Late Adolescents: Longitudinal Associations and Academic Progress.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 41: 346–361. 10.1007/s10964-011-9734-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Klimstra, T. A. , Luyckx K., Goossens L., Teppers E., and de Fruyt F.. 2013. “Associations of Identity Dimensions With Big Five Personality Domains and Facets.” European Journal of Personality 27: 213–221. 10.1002/per.1853. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Kline, R. B. 2015. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kroger, J. , and Marcia J. E.. 2011. “The Identity Statuses: Origins, Meanings, and Interpretations.” In Handbook of Identity Theory and Research, edited by Schwartz S. J., Luyckx K., and Vignoles V. L., 31–53. Springer. [Google Scholar]
  39. Little, R. J. A. 1988. “A Test of Missing Completely at Random for Multivariate Data With Missing Values.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 83, no. 404: 1198–1202. 10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Luyckx, K. , Teppers E., Klimstra T. A., and Rassart J.. 2014. “Identity Processes and Personality Traits and Types in Adolescence: Directionality of Effects and Developmental Trajectories.” Developmental Psychology 50, no. 8: 2144–2153. 10.1037/a0037256. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Mancini, T. , Caricati L., Panari C., and Tonarelli A.. 2015. “Personal and Social Aspects of Professional Identity.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 89: 140–150. [Google Scholar]
  42. Marcia, J. E. 1966. “Development and Validation of Ego‐Identity Status.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 3: 551–558. 10.1037/h0023281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Marcia, J. E. 2002. “Identity and Psychosocial Development in Adulthood.” Identity 2: 7–28. 10.1207/S1532706XID0201_02. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. McAdams, D. P. , and Olson B. D.. 2010. “Personality Development: Continuity and Change Over the Life Course.” Annual Review of Psychology 61: 517–542. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. McAdams, D. P. , and Zapata‐Gietl C.. 2015. “Three Standards of Identity Development Across the Human Life Course: Reading Erik Erikson in Full.” In The Oxford Handbook of Identity Development, edited by Mclean K. C. and Syed M., 81. Oxford. [Google Scholar]
  46. McCrae, R. R. , and John O. P.. 1992. “An Introduction to the Five‐Factor Model and Its Applications.” Journal of Personality 60: 175–215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare . 2024. “Job Turnover Among New Graduates (March 2020 Graduates).” Original Work Published in Japanese. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/11805001/001158687.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  48. Muthén, L. K. , and Muthén B. O.. 1998–2012. Mplus User's Guide (7th ed.). Muthén & Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  49. Negru‐Subtirica, O. 2024. “Educational Identity Processes in Adolescence: An Analysis of Longitudinal Evidence and the Role of Educational Systems.” Child Development Perspectives 18, no. 2: 97–103. 10.1111/cdep.12504. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Pavani, J.‐B. , Fort I., Moncel C., Ritz H., and Dauvier B.. 2021. “Influence of Extraversion and Neuroticism on the Weekly Dynamics of Jobseekers' Self‐Regulation.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 130: 103618. 10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103618. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Persol Research and Consulting & Persol Career . 2019. “Quantitative Survey on the Realities of Job Hunting and After Employment in Japan.” Original Work Published in Japanese. https://rc.persol-group.co.jp/thinktank/assets/reality-shock.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  52. Porfeli, E. J. , Lee B., Vondracek F. W., and Weigold I. K.. 2011. “A Multi‐Dimensional Measure of Vocational Identity Status.” Journal of Adolescence 34, no. 5: 853–871. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.02.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Pratt, M. W. , and Matsuba M. K.. 2018. The Life Story, Domains of Identity, and Personality Development in Emerging Adulthood. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  54. Pulkkinen, L. , and Kokko K.. 2000. “Identity Development in Adulthood: A Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Research in Personality 34: 445–470. 10.1006/jrpe.2000.2296. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Quintini, G. , and Manfredi T.. 2009. Going Separate Ways? School‐to‐Work Transitions in the United States and Europe, 90. OECD. Employment and Migration Working Papers. OECD Publishing. 10.1787/221717700447. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Satorra, A. , and Bentler P. M.. 2001. “A Scaled Difference Chi‐Square Test Statistic for Moment Structure Analysis.” Psychometrika 66, no. 4: 507–514. 10.1007/BF02296192. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Schwartz, S. J. , Zamboanga B. L., Wang W., and Olthuis J. V.. 2009. “Measuring Identity From an Eriksonian Perspective: Two Sides of the Same Coin.” Journal of Personality Assessment 91: 143–154. 10.1080/00223890802634266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Shaw, D. S. , Gilliom M., Ingoldsby E. M., and Nagin D. S.. 2003. “Trajectories Leading to School Age Conduct Problems.” Developmental Psychology 39, no. 2: 189–200. 10.1037/0012-1649.39.2.189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Soto, C. J. , and John O. P.. 2017. “The Next Big Five Inventory (BFI‐2): Developing and Assessing a Hierarchical Model With 15 Facets to Enhance Bandwidth, Fidelity, and Predictive Power.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 113, no. 1: 117–143. 10.1037/pspp0000096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Steyer, R. , Eid M., and Schwenkmezger P.. 1997. “Modeling True Intraindividual Change: True Change as a Latent Variable.” Methods of Psychological Research Online 2: 21–33. [Google Scholar]
  61. Sugimura, K. 2020. “Adolescent Identity Development in Japan.” Child Development Perspectives 14, no. 2: 71–77. 10.1111/cdep.12359. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Wang, P. , Zhou J., Shen X., et al. 2024. “Health Characteristics and Factors Associated With Transition Shock in Newly Graduated Registered Nurses: A Latent Class Analysis.” BMC Nursing 23, no. 1: 211. 10.1186/s12912-024-01862-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Wiggins, J. S. 1979. “A Psychological Taxonomy of Trait‐Descriptive Terms: The Interpersonal Domain.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37: 395–412. [Google Scholar]
  64. Wihler, A. , Meurs J. A., Wiesmann D., Troll L., and Blickle G.. 2017. “Extraversion and Adaptive Performance: Integrating Trait Activation and Socioanalytic Personality Theories at Work.” Personality and Individual Differences 116: 133–138. 10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.034. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Table S1: Participants' Majors. Table S2: Business Sectors of the Participants' Employment. Table S3: Measurement Invariance Test Results.

JAD-98-521-s001.docx (69.1KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

This manuscript's data will not be deposited. The data sets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available, but are available from the corresponding author upon a reasonable request. Generative AI and AI‐assisted technologies were used in the writing process to improve the readability and language of the manuscript.

Articles from Journal of Adolescence are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES