Interactions between anxiety subtypes, personality characteristics, and emotional regulation skills as predictors of future work outcomes

Abstract

This study used multi-reporter data to examine personality traits and emotion regulation/coping skills as moderators of associations between different types of anxiety and future occupational outcomes in a community sample of 184 emerging adults followed from ages 17-30. Trait anxiety, anxious arousal, rejection sensitivity, and implicit rejection were examined as predictors of later career-related ambition, work performance, job satisfaction, and career satisfaction. Conscientiousness, grit, emotion regulation (ER) and coping skills were analyzed as potential moderators. Although trait anxiety was the only anxiety variable predictive of occupational outcomes in regression analyses, personality variables and ER skills interacted with multiple types of anxiety to predict occupational outcomes. Findings reflected a pattern in which conscientiousness and ER skills mitigated negative effects of anxiety to predict better career outcomes. Findings suggest that traits such as conscientiousness and ER skills may be particularly helpful in the context of high anxiety to promote positive career development.

When considering what it means to be successful at work, one usually thinks of awards, promotions, and raises as the defining factors of career success. These rewards are often granted to employees who are diligent, confident, and action-oriented – the type of people who can likely perform well at any job, and under various work conditions. However, attainment of such positive work outcomes may be undermined by specific personal qualities or challenges. For example, people who suffer from anxiety often struggle with concentration, assertiveness, and resilience, which may lead to difficulties at work (Orenstein, Orenstein, & Carr, 1975). Indeed, large scale studies suggest that anxious individuals are less likely to experience success and satisfaction at work (Boudreau, Boswell, & Judge, 2001; Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999).

Importantly, anxiety can be experienced and expressed in different ways. Trait anxiety is a general type of anxiety that refers to the stable tendency to consciously experience negative emotions such as fear and worry across many situations (Gidron, 2013). Some individuals experience anxiety more physiologically; anxious arousal is the experience of bodily sensations that are interpreted as unpleasant such as increased heart rate, muscle tension, and shortness of breath (Porter, 2000). Others may have a high level of explicit rejection sensitivity as the main component of their anxiety. This is the tendency to anxiously expect, readily perceive, and overreact to social rejection (Downey & Feldman, 1996). Others may have implicit feelings of rejection, which is similar conceptually to explicit rejection sensitivity, but is measured at the subconscious level through a reaction-time test (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). Little is known about how these different presentations of anxiety may contribute to predictions of professional success or if certain forms predict greater impairment than others.

Despite links between anxiety and negative work outcomes, some individuals with anxiety may nevertheless perform well at their jobs despite their symptoms. This may be because some individuals have personality characteristics that promote effective work behaviors even in the context of anxiety, or perhaps because they possess the emotional tools necessary to successfully cope with symptoms of anxiety when needed. To date, research has yet to consider whether specific personality traits or coping mechanisms might predict improved career outcomes for anxious individuals. Thus, the purpose of the present study is to better understand (a) how different types of anxiety affect occupational outcomes, and (b) which types of personality traits or coping strategies may be more predictive of positive occupational outcomes for highly anxious individuals.

Anxiety and Career Outcomes

Anxiety manifests in many ways; common symptoms include worry, insomnia, irritability, trouble concentrating, and shortness of breath. The resulting stress from general anxiety has been shown to lead to deleterious health and psychosocial outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, substance abuse, and lower social functioning (Brosschot, Gerin, & Thayer, 2006; Woodward & Fergusson, 2001). Anxiety, broadly defined, has also been linked to poorer career outcomes. For example, anxious employees are often less productive, especially in jobs that require team work (ADAA, 2006). Anxiety symptoms impact employees’ relationships with coworkers and superiors, as well as their quality of work. A study by Eysenck and Calvo (1992) demonstrated that anxiety-induced worry can lead to impaired performance on tasks that require high attention or short-term memory demands. Additionally, they found that concurrent tasks, such as performance and safety, were especially negatively affected by anxiety.

However, little is known about what specific types of anxiety may be most influential for explaining negative work outcomes. This is a critical consideration, as a better understanding of how different aspects of anxiety contribute to adult career success can better inform prevention and intervention efforts. Increasing such understanding may be particularly helpful to employees and employers alike, as more than 18 percent of the adult population suffers from an anxiety disorder, which may have more influence on productivity than employers realize (ADAA, 2006).

The Role of Personality Traits

Anxious individuals may not necessarily be predestined to poor work performance. There may be mitigating factors that can help them find success in the workplace, such as adaptive personality traits. Conscientiousness is one such personality trait; it represents impulse control and vigilance that usually manifests into organized behaviors. Previous studies in industrial-organizational psychology have demonstrated conscientiousness as a protective factor against exhaustion due to prolonged occupational stress (Swider & Zimmerman, 2010). Conscientiousness usually negatively correlates with general anxiety, but some complexities have emerged. After analyzing personality traits and anxiety symptoms, Vreeke and Muris (2012) found that conscientiousness served as a significant positive predictor of behavioral inhibition, a component of anxiety that is characterized by timidity and withdrawal; this suggests that conscientiousness and anxiety may be interrelated and can co-exist in some individuals. Due to such complexities, it appears necessary to further explore how different aspects of anxiety may interact with personality traits to predict future outcomes.

Grit, a personality trait defined by motivation to reach a long-term goal regardless of challenges, may be another useful construct to consider in this regard. Grit is a top predictor of success in academic and occupational contexts. Like conscientiousness, grit may coexist with anxiety. For example, grit does not prevent a person from experiencing setbacks. Instead, it is a quality of passion that helps individuals overcome these setbacks and progress towards an objective. Although research is sparse on this subject, studies show that conscientiousness and grit both correlate negatively with anxiety (Sheridan, Boman, Mergler, Furlong, & Elmer, 2015). However, some studies have shown no correlation between anxiety and grit (Chinoy, 2016; MacCann & Roberts, 2010). Though some researchers believe that grit is merely a subtrait of conscientiousness, because it seems to overlap with some facets of conscientiousness (Ivcevic & Brackett, 2014), it remains unclear how these traits function relative to one another with regard to predicting future outcomes. Thus, including both of these variables in the present study is imperative to understanding their unique contributions to potentially predicting job performance in anxious individuals.

Positive Coping and Emotion Regulation Skills

Another hopeful possibility with regard to mitigating anxiety is the development of positive coping skills to respond to stress in a productive way. Coping skills are methods that people employ in order to minimize and better tolerate stressful situations. Emotion regulation (ER) is the act of monitoring, evaluating, and modifying emotional reactions in a manner that complies with societal norms. A correlational analysis by Smrtnik, Vitulić, and Prosen (2016) showed significant associations between specific coping and ER strategies, but no significant correlation between coping and ER overall; this implies that coping and ER are related yet distinct processes.

There are two primary types of coping skills: emotion-focused and problem-focused coping. Research has shown that emotion-focused coping skills can serve as a protective factor against developing higher levels of anxiety in long-term, stressful situations (Cooper, Katona, Orrell, & Livingston, 2008). Other studies have shown that problem-focused coping strategies negatively correlate with anxiety (Byrne, 2000). A 2001 study by Van der Klink, Blonk, Schene, and Van Dijk found that the most effective way of combatting occupational stress was through cognitive behavioral interventions, which focused on the development of problem-focused coping strategies. Similarly, past research on ER skills shows that students with higher ER abilities exhibit lower levels of anxiety and more successful school outcomes in terms of GPA and academic honors (Ivcevic & Brackett, 2014). Moreover, a study of employees at three hotel and resort facilities found that ER, specifically reappraisal, positively correlated with job performance (Liu, Prati, Perrewé, & Brymer, 2010). Although recent research in ER and job performance is sparse, these studies suggest that there are links between them.

Both positive coping and emotion regulation skills, particularly in the context of interventions, are intended to effectively reduce the impact of anxiety symptoms, but not to necessarily eliminate them. This means that these skills can be developed and used in the context of existing anxiety. Thus, having anxiety does not preclude individuals from also having the skills to manage it effectively. In order to understand how coping skills and emotion regulation are predictive of future career-related outcomes, it is essential to examine both as potential moderators of associations between anxiety and job performance. Moreover, it is important to examine the relative helpfulness of ER/coping strategies versus personality characteristics for potentially reducing the negative effects of anxiety on work outcomes.

Hypotheses

Based on prior research, it was hypothesized that all types of anxiety would predict lower levels of a variety of aspects of occupational performance. However, it was predicted that rejection sensitivity and anxious arousal, as compared to other subtypes of anxiety, would be most strongly associated with poorer work outcomes. Rejection sensitivity may be especially insidious due to its social nature, potentially inhibiting positive work relationships important for career success. Similarly, symptoms related to anxious arousal may be distracting and difficult to overcome in the workplace, potentially inhibiting work performance. It is also hypothesized that both adaptive personality traits and ER/coping will diminish the negative effect that anxiety has on job performance, with a more robust effect for ER/coping. This is because ER/coping skills seem to directly target specific symptoms of anxiety, whereas the benefits of positive personality characteristics might have a more diffused effect and therefore a lesser impact on anxiety.

Method

Participants and Procedure

The sample for this study is drawn from a long-term longitudinal study of adolescent and young adult social and emotional development. Participants included 184 young adults (86 male, 98 female). The sample was racially/ethnically and socioeconomically diverse (107 Caucasian, 53 African American, 2 Hispanic/Latino, 2 Asian American, 1 American Indian, 15 mixed ethnicity, and 4 “other”). Participants were initially interviewed at approximately age 13, and then interviewed again on an annual basis for 16 years. Participants were initially recruited from a single public middle school drawing from suburban and urban populations in the Southeastern United States. Students were recruited through an initial mailing to all parents of students in the 7th and 8th grades of the school that gave them the opportunity to opt out of any further contact with the study (N = 298). Only 2% of parents opted out of such contact. Of all families subsequently contacted by phone, 63% agreed to participate and had an adolescent who was able to come in with both a parent and a close friend. This sample appeared generally comparable to the overall population of the school in terms of racial/ethnic makeup (42% non-white in sample and about 40% non-white in school) and socio-economic status (mean household income of $43,618 in the sample compared to $48,000 for the broader community). Assessments in this study were made at mean ages 17.32 (SD = .88), 18.38 (SD = 1.04), 19.66 (SD = 1.07), 26.64 (SD = 1.01), 27.67 (SD = .99), 28.55 (SD = .98), 30.07 (SD = .91). At the ages 27 through 30 assessments, participants also nominated their closest friend who was not a romantic partner to be included in the study to provide information about participate career outcomes (not necessarily the same friend across ages). Close friends participated with informed consent. Where the closest friend was not available or willing to participate, the next closest friend was selected; close friend data were available for 149 of the participants in the study. Close friends reported that they had known the adolescents for an average of 13.28 years (SD = 7.85) at the age 27 assessment, 13.08 years (SD = 7.33) at the age 28 assessment, and 13.04 years (SD = 7.58) at the age 30 assessment. They were also close in age to target participants (Ages 29.54 (SD = 6.34), 29.90 (SD =5.54), 31.00 (SD = 4.60) respectively, at the age 27, 28, and 30 participant assessments) and overwhelmingly of the same gender as the target participant (90% at age 27, 89% at age 28, and 93% at age 30).

Attrition Analyses

Attrition analyses examined response bias based on missing data at the various follow-up time points of the study. Females were more likely than males to have self-report data at ages 26-27 (98% for females vs. 78% for males, p < 001) and self-report data on career satisfaction at age 30 (71% for females vs. 53% for males, p = .01). Females were also more likely than males to have friends provide data at ages 27-30 (87% for females vs. 74% for males, p = .03). Participants who reported higher levels of conscientiousness at age 26 were more likely to have self-report career satisfaction data at age 30 (t = 2.31, p < .02). With regard to data completeness, at ages 17-19, 178 participants had data on anxiety measures; at ages 26-27, 163 (of the 178) participants had data on personality and coping/ER variables; at ages 27-30, 149 (of the 178) participants had friend-reported data about work-related outcomes; and at age 30, 116 (of the 178) participants had self-report data on career satisfaction. Aside from those described above, there were no other significant differences on any other measures for individuals with vs. without data at any follow up time points, suggesting that attrition was not likely to have distorted the findings reported. Nevertheless, to best address any potential biases due to attrition in longitudinal analyses or missing data within waves, full information maximum likelihood (FIML) methods were used with analyses including all variables that were linked to future missing data (i.e., where data were not missing completely at random). Because these procedures have been found to yield the least biased estimates when all available data are used for longitudinal analyses (vs. listwise deletion of missing data) (Arbuckle, 1996), the entire original sample of 184 participants was utilized for these analyses. This full sample thus provides the best possible estimates of variances and covariances in measures of interest and was least likely to be biased by missing data.

Measures

Trait Anxiety.

The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory is a self-report measure that was given to participants at ages 18-19. Items are scored on a 4-point Likert scale with reverse coded positive items such that higher scores indicate greater anxiety. Responses to the STAI correlated with previous anxiety measures (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970). In this longitudinal study, only the trait version of the STAI was used; it is designed to measure the general, persistent quality of anxiety as opposed to temporary states of anxiety. Participants completed the STAI at both ages 18 and 19; an average score across these ages was used to obtain a more stable measure of trait anxiety during the late adolescent years (age 18 α = .90; age 19 α = .89).

Anxious Arousal.

The Affective Arousal Scale is an 8-item self-report measure that quantifies individuals’ subjective experience of attachment-related arousal (Porter, 2000). This scale was given to participants at ages 17–19 and the scores were averaged to attain a more reliable measure of anxious arousal during late adolescence. It was administered before and after an attachment interview; participants were asked to respond to questions about how they were feeling at that exact moment. The pre-interview score was subtracted from the post-interview score; higher scores represent greater attachment-related negative arousal. The anxious subscale (“tense and worried” items) was used in the current study. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient demonstrates internal consistency for the anxious subscale (age 17 α = .88; age 18 α = .93; age 19 α = .90).

Rejection Sensitivity.

The Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire was given to participants at ages 17-19; an average score across these ages was used to secure a more stable measure of rejection sensitivity in late adolescence (Downey & Feldman, 1996). They were presented with brief vignettes about themselves and another person (parent, peer, etc.), and then asked “How concerned or anxious would you be about how the other person would respond?” and “How do you think the other person would be likely to respond?” Each question was scored on a Likert scale from 1 (very unconcerned/very unlikely) to 6 (very concerned/very likely) (age 17 α = .87; age 18 α = .90; age 19 α = .92).

Implicit Feelings of Rejection.

The Implicit Association Test is a response time task that presents words or pictures to participants who must classify them into one of two categories (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). It has adequate test-retest reliability and correlates with similar implicit measures. It was administered to participants at ages 17-18; these scores were averaged in order to obtain a more stable measure of implicit rejection sensitivity in the late adolescent years. This study specifically used the “self: rejected vs. liked” scale. Higher scores indicate greater feelings of implicit rejection.

Conscientiousness.

At age 26, participants took the Personality Item Pool (PIP), which measures the Big 5 personality traits using a 5-point Likert scale (Goldberg et al., 2006). The conscientiousness scale was used for this study. The PIP has comparable internal consistency estimates with other similar measures, as well as high predictive validity (α = .84).

Grit.

Grit was measured at age 27 using the 12-item self-report Grit Scale (Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, & Kelly, 2007). The average maximum score on this scale is 5 (extremely gritty), and the minimum score on this scale is 1 (not at all gritty). In past studies, this scale has shown face validity for varied populations and predictive validity for educational attainment (α = .79).

Emotional Regulation.

The Emotional Regulation Questionnaire is a 10-item self-report scale designed to assess individual differences in the use of two emotion regulation strategies: cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression (Gross & John, 2003). In the present study, cognitive reappraisal was the focus of analysis. Participants responded to this questionnaire when they were 26 years old (α = .89).

Positive coping skills.

Young adults’ ability to positively cope with negative emotions at the age of 26 was assessed using the COPE inventory (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989). This inventory uses 28 self-report items to measure different adaptive and dysfunctional responses to stress. More specifically, the subscales that reflect positive coping strategies such as planning, active coping, and positive reframing were used in this study. Cronbach’s alpha = .86 for planning,.74 for active coping, and .80 for positive reframing.

Occupational performance.

Occupational outcomes at ages 27-30 were measured by the responses of close friends about participants on the Young Adult Adjustment Scale (YAAS) and via participants’ self-report on the Career Satisfaction Scale (CSS) (Capaldi, King, & Wilson, 1992). Occupational performance on the YAAS was defined by subscale scores regarding professional ambition (5 items), positive work performance (9 items), and job satisfaction (1 item) assessed via 5-point Likert scales; the CSS measures career satisfaction with 5 items assessed on a 5-point Likert scale. Alphas for these scales showed good to excellent reliability (all αs > .85).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Univariate and correlational analyses.

Means and standard deviations for all primary variables are presented in Table 1. For descriptive purposes, correlations were examined between all key variables of interest and are presented in Table 1. These analyses revealed that gender and family income had significant associations with several primary variables. Income only had a positive correlation with positive coping skills (r = .23, p < .01). Gender had significant, positive associations with anxious arousal (r = .17, p < .05) and coping (r = .18, p < .05), indicating that females were more likely to score higher on these measures. In addition, gender correlated negatively with rejection sensitivity (r = −.16, p < .05), indicating that males were more likely to report rejection sensitivity. Both demographic variables were included as covariates in all regression analyses to account for any effects that may not have reached conventional levels of statistical significance.

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations, and correlations of primary variables.

	Mean (SD)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1. Income	43,618 (22,420)	-
2. Gender	47% male	−.11	-
3. Trait Anxiety (18-19)	35.24 (8.30)	.03	.05	-
4. Anxious Arousal (17-19)	1.63 (1.93)	.12	.17*	.25**	-
5. Rejection Sensitivity (17-19)	7.82 (3.00)	−.06	−.16*	.34***	.28**	-
6. Implicit Rejection Sensitivity (17-18)	−0.59 (0.37)	.12	.08	−.01	−.09	.03	-
7. Conscientiousness (26)	37.79 (6.93)	.03	.12	−.32***	.04	−.10	−.10	-
8. Grit (27)	43.36 (6.90)	.00	.05	−.31***	−.03	−.15	−.04	.51***	-
9. Positive Coping (26)	11.62 (2.16)	.23**	.18*	−.09	.10	−.13	.10	.39***	.33***	-
10. Emotion Regulation (26)	29.88 (6.58)	.12	.07	−.04	.04	−.08	−.07	.17*	.11	.37***	-
11. Ambition (27-30)	19.63 (3.88)	.06	.15	−.11	.05	−.04	−.01	.19*	.19*	.36***	.23**	-
12. Work Performance (27-30)	35.39 (3.94)	.06	.06	.03	−.05	−.00	.16	.06	.08	.22*	−.02	.64***	-
13. Job Satisfaction (27-30)	3.55 (0.97)	.09	.04	−.17*	−.10	−.02	.04	.21*	.14	.24**	.16	.55***	.38***	-
14. Career Satisfaction (30)	17.39 (5.89)	−.04	.00	−.25**	−.06	.08	.13	.32***	.41***	.24*	.14	.17	.02	.17

Note.

Gender coded as: 1 = males, 2 = females;

^*p < .05

^**p < .01

^***p < .001

Preliminary analyses also investigated possible associations between predictors, potential moderators, and outcomes. Trait anxiety, anxious arousal, and rejection sensitivity had moderate, positive correlations with each other. However, implicit rejection sensitivity was not significantly related to any of the other primary variables. The potential moderating variable of positive coping skills was also notable in that it correlated significantly with all of the other moderators and outcomes. Additionally, the outcomes of ambition, work performance, and job satisfaction were noteworthy due to their positive correlations with one another.

Primary Analyses

Hypothesis 1.

All subtypes of anxiety will predict more negative work outcomes, with stronger negative effects for anxious arousal and rejection sensitivity.

Analyses first investigated the relative impact of trait anxiety, anxious arousal, rejection sensitivity, and implicit rejection sensitivity on occupational outcomes. Trait anxiety negatively correlated with job satisfaction (r = −.17, p < .05) and career satisfaction (r = −.25, p < .01), but the rest of the anxiety subtypes did not significantly predict any of the occupational outcomes (see Table 1).

A series of hierarchical regression analyses examined predictions from anxiety subtypes at the ages of 17-19 to each of the occupational outcomes at ages 27-30. Gender and income were entered as covariates in all models, followed by the four anxiety subtype variables. There were no significant results with gender or income. Results indicated that anxious arousal was a predictor of lower job satisfaction (β = −.18, p < .05). The other anxiety subtypes were not significant predictors of any occupational outcomes in regression analyses.

Hypothesis 2.

Adaptive personality traits and ER/coping skills will diminish the negative effects that anxiety subtypes have on occupational outcomes, with a more robust effect for ER/coping skills.

Analyses next examined the extent to which conscientiousness, grit, positive coping skills, and emotion regulation skills might moderate the relationship between anxiety and occupational outcomes. To test this hypothesis, a series of hierarchical regression analyses were conducted. All analyses included gender and income as covariates, one anxiety subtype variable, the two personality and two ER/coping variables, and the interactions between the anxiety subtype and personality, ER, and coping variables. Interaction variables were created by standardizing the anxiety subtype and personality, ER, and coping variables before multiplying them together.

Ambition

Hierarchical regression analyses investigated interactions between each anxiety subtype and personality traits, ER/coping skills, and professional ambition. Gender and income were entered as covariates, but neither were found to be significant. Significant main effects were found between positive coping skills at age 26 and ambition at ages 27-30 when accounting for trait anxiety (β = .32, p < .001), anxious arousal (β = .38, p < .001), rejection sensitivity (β = .28, p < .01), and implicit rejection sensitivity (β = .33, p < .001) at age 18. Results indicated a significant interaction between anxious arousal and conscientiousness predicting ambition (β = .30, p < .01; see Figure 1). The interaction showed that physically anxious individuals with higher conscientiousness experienced higher levels of ambition as compared to physically anxious individuals with lower conscientiousness. Results also indicated an interaction between trait anxiety and emotion regulation predicting ambition (β = .23, p < .05; see Figure 2). This demonstrated that cognitively anxious individuals with higher emotion regulation skills had higher levels of ambition as compared to anxious individuals with lower emotion regulation skills.

Figure 1.

Interaction between anxious arousal (17-19) and conscientiousness (26) predicting ambition (27-30). High and low values of the constructs represent scores 1 SD above and below the mean, respectively.

Figure 2.

Interaction between trait anxiety (18-19) and emotion regulation (26) predicting ambition (27-30). High and low values of the constructs represent scores 1 SD above and below the mean, respectively.

Work Performance

Following the same approach described above, regression analyses were used to examine personality traits and ER/coping skills as potential moderators between subtypes of anxiety and work performance. Gender and income were entered as covariates, but neither were found to be significant. Several main effects were found between positive coping at age 26 and work performance at ages 27-30 when accounting for trait anxiety (β = .32, p < .01), anxious arousal (β = .35, p < .01), rejection sensitivity (β = .29, p < .01), and implicit rejection sensitivity (β = .25, p < .05) at age 18. Results indicated a significant interaction between rejection sensitivity and emotion regulation predicting work performance (β = −.26, p < .05; see Figure 3). This demonstrated that individuals with high rejection sensitivity and high emotion regulation experience lower levels of performance at work than rejection sensitive people with low emotion regulation. Results also indicated a significant interaction between implicit rejection sensitivity and emotion regulation predicting work performance (β = .38, p < .01; see Figure 4). This interaction showed that youth with implicit rejection sensitivity and high emotion regulation experience higher levels of performance at work than anxious people with low emotion regulation.

Figure 3.

Interaction between rejection sensitivity (17-19) and emotion regulation (26) predicting work performance (27-30). High and low values of the constructs represent scores 1 SD above and below the mean, respectively.

Figure 4.

Interaction between implicit rejection sensitivity (17-18) and emotion regulation (26) predicting work performance (27-30). High and low values of the constructs represent scores 1 SD above and below the mean, respectively.

Job Satisfaction

A hierarchical regression examined personality traits and ER/coping skills as moderators between anxiety subtypes and job satisfaction. Gender and income were entered as covariates, but neither were found to be significant. There was a significant main effect of anxious arousal predicting lower job satisfaction. However, no significant interactions were found.

Career Satisfaction

Finally, regression analyses were performed to investigate interactions between anxiety subtypes, personality traits, ER/coping skills, and career satisfaction. Gender and income were entered as covariates, but neither were found to be significant. Main effects were found between grit at age 27 and career satisfaction at age 30 when accounting for trait anxiety (β = .29, p < .01), rejection sensitivity (β = .32, p < .01), and implicit rejection sensitivity (β = .31, p < .01) at age 18. Another main effect was found between conscientiousness at age 26 and career satisfaction at age 30 when accounting for anxious arousal (β = .24, p < .05). Additionally, results indicated a significant interaction between anxious arousal and grit predicting career satisfaction (β = −.44, p < .01; see Figure 5). This interaction showed that physically anxious individuals with high grit had higher levels of career satisfaction than physically anxious people with low grit. Results also indicated a significant interaction between anxious arousal and emotion regulation predicting career satisfaction (β = .62, p < .001; see Figure 6). This interaction showed that physically anxious individuals with high emotion regulation had higher levels of career satisfaction than physically anxious people with low emotion regulation.

Figure 5.

Interaction between anxious arousal (17-19) and grit (27) predicting career satisfaction (30). High and low values of the constructs represent scores 1 SD above and below the mean, respectively.

Figure 6.

Interaction between anxious arousal (17-19) and emotion regulation (26) predicting career satisfaction (30). High and low values of the constructs represent scores 1 SD above and below the mean, respectively.

Discussion

This study provides evidence for links between anxiety subtypes, personality traits, ER/coping skills, and occupational outcomes, while also providing support for personality traits and ER/coping skills as moderators of links between anxiety and occupational outcomes. Connections between anxiety symptoms and negative occupational outcomes were hypothesized based on the findings of previous research, which suggest that anxious individuals are less likely to experience success and satisfaction at work (Boudreau, Boswell, & Judge, 2001; Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999). Data from the current study suggest some corroborating support for this hypothesis. Trait anxiety at age 18 negatively correlated with future job and career satisfaction at ages 27-30, and anxious arousal at age 18 predicted low job satisfaction during this timeframe in regression analysis. One explanation for these findings could be that cognitive symptoms such as worry and rumination make it increasingly difficult to feel competent and productive in career-related contexts. These maladaptive thought processes might negatively influence how a person perceives their work environment or their own effectiveness. Supporting this perspective, studies have shown that the presence of worry and rumination tend to predict negative affect and lower self-compassion (Segerstrom, Tsao, Alden, & Craske, 2000; Raes, 2010). Similarly, experiencing anxious arousal symptoms may be distracting and decrease focus essential to work success. In a study by Lavric, Rippon, and Gray (2003), high anxious arousal, which was measured through heart rate and self-report data, was associated with impaired spatial working memory, a particularly critical skill for jobs in the science, technology, engineering, and math fields (Wai, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2009). Thus, both types of symptoms have the potential to interfere with work and lead individuals to be less satisfied in this domain.

However, significant long-term links were not found between the other anxiety subtypes and occupational outcomes that were examined in this study. It is possible that symptoms of trait anxiety and anxious arousal are more pervasive compared to the explicit and implicit rejection sensitivity examined here. Rejection sensitivity, by definition, is the tendency to anxiously expect, readily perceive, and overreact to rejection in interpersonal situations (Downey & Feldman, 1996). Therefore, it follows that rejection sensitivity may have greater importance during social aspects of work (or types of work in which socialization is frequent), but perhaps not have pervasive effects on occupational outcomes if socialization is a minimal or predictable part of work. For example, rejection sensitive individuals tend to be less shy when using text-based computer-mediated communication compared to in-person communication, as the absence of auditory and visual cues reduces the detection of negative feedback cues (Stritzke, Nguyen, and Durkin, 2004). Rejection sensitive individuals may also tend to shy away from choosing work that involves heavy socialization components when possible to minimize anxiety. Indeed, research suggests a positive correlation between rejection sensitivity and social avoidance (Watson and Nesdale, 2012). It is thus possible that isolating rejection sensitive individuals who do work in highly social contexts might reveal a link between rejection sensitivity and occupational outcomes not revealed by the present study.

The second hypothesis predicted that ER/coping skills would have a more robust moderating effect on anxiety and occupational outcomes compared to personality traits such as conscientiousness and grit. The results of the current study also provided some support for this hypothesis. This study found that the presence of better emotional regulation skills predicted greater career satisfaction, ambition, and work performance for individuals with greater anxious arousal, trait anxiety, and implicit rejection sensitivity, respectively. These findings indicate that the effects of anxiety on occupational outcomes might be mitigated, or perhaps even harnessed adaptively, by individuals who tend to use more adaptive emotion regulation skills.

A significant interaction first showed that individuals with symptoms of anxious arousal and high emotion regulation experienced higher career satisfaction relative to individuals with anxious arousal and lower emotion regulation. It may be that if a person is physically anxious, but can manage their interpretations of and actions in response to those feelings adaptively, they are able to use such arousal to positively drive behavior as opposed to becoming overwhelmed and mired by such feelings. The Yerkes-Dodson law of optimal arousal supports this perspective. It states that the performance of a task increases with stress up to a certain point; when the level of anxious arousal is too high, performance is impaired (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908). It is also dependent on task difficulty, as the successful completion of simple tasks correspond with higher arousal and complex tasks correspond with lower arousal. Perhaps highly anxious individuals, when equipped with skills that make tasks at work easier, can thrive in their chosen careers.

This possibility is furthered by additional findings in which emotion regulation was a moderator. Individuals with higher trait anxiety and better emotion regulation skills experienced greater ambition when compared to anxious individuals with lower emotion regulation skills, just as those with higher implicit rejection sensitivity and emotional regulation skills had greater work performance. Again, it may be that the combination of some level of cognitive anxiety, recognized and responded to effectively, may fuel occupational ambition and success. The ability to look for and recognize challenges and potential problems, while having the skills to negotiate them successfully, may allow them to overcome them and gain greater confidence that they will be able to do so in the future. Knowing their abilities could allow individuals to imagine more ambitious career pursuits than they would without such emotional skills. Similarly, expecting rejection, even on an implicit level, may motivate an individual to perform at their best in order to avoid experiencing negative reactions from a client, colleague, or supervisor. The ability to appropriately recognize and respond to uncomfortable emotional experiences may demonstrate a skilled awareness that may translate to better work performance.

However, there was also a significant interaction in which high explicit rejection sensitivity and high emotion regulation skills predicted lower work performance. It could be that individuals with implicit rejection sensitivity are actually somewhat more socially skilled than individuals with explicit rejection sensitivity, which enables implicitly rejected sensitive individuals to perform better in work contexts. It may also be more difficult for explicitly rejection sensitive individuals to manage the more salient cognitive demands of expected social rejection in the workplace. Studies consistently demonstrate a positive correlation between rejection sensitivity and emotion dysregulation (Gratz, Dixon-Gordon, Breetz, & Tull, 2013; Peters, Smart, & Baer, 2015), and even for those individuals who do have the emotion regulation skills examined in this study, it may be that they are simply not an effective match for helping navigate such explicit fears of rejection. It is possible that explicitly rejection sensitive individuals would benefit from emotional skills that are better targeted to their specific concerns and include aspects of social skills training to help them manage social fears in the workplace.

Interestingly, there were no direct effects between emotion regulation skills and occupational outcomes, suggesting that these skills may be most helpful in the context of vulnerabilities to different types of anxiety when considering occupational outcomes. Unlike emotion regulation skills, positive coping skills did not have any interactions with anxiety subtypes to predict study outcomes. Instead, positive coping skills had main effects with ambition and work performance after controlling for each subtype of anxiety. Thus, coping skills seem to be generally positive predictors of occupational outcomes even after considering the potential effects of anxiety, and thus may be more useful in a general sense than emotion regulation skills when considering occupational, or perhaps even other challenging contexts. Indeed, a study by Billings and Moos (1981) examined coping responses to illness, death, economic, child, other interpersonal, and other non-interpersonal stressors and found that active, problem-focused coping skills attenuated the relationship between a variety stressful life events and overall functioning. Thus, having positive coping skills may prepare individuals to successfully respond to a wide host of challenges that could arise along a work or career trajectory that may not necessarily be related to anxiety. Indeed, there is evidence that adaptive coping skills benefit both clinical and non-clinical populations (Borkovec & Ruscio, 2001; Hartman, Evans, & Anderson, 2017).

Results also indicated that the presence of personality traits such as conscientiousness and grit may ameliorate the negative effects of anxiety on occupational outcomes. A significant interaction indicated that individuals with high anxious arousal and high conscientiousness experienced higher levels of professional ambition relative to individuals with anxious arousal and lower conscientiousness. To the extent that conscientiousness permits individuals the ability to manage challenging demands through behavioral inhibition and organizational behaviors, this may allow room for enhanced motivation to achieve in academic and occupational settings (Bandura, 1997). Conscientious individuals prone to physiological anxiety may able to use such sensations as information to stay ahead of and better respond to problems, That is, anxious individuals may be able to think big in terms of professional goals if they know they are the type of person who can successfully identify and manage stressors along the way.

Interestingly, there was a significant interaction between anxious arousal and grit predicting career satisfaction that countered initial hypotheses. Results indicated that physically anxious individuals with high grit experienced lower levels of career satisfaction, whereas conscientiousness, as mentioned above, showed the opposite (i.e. a buffering) effect for these variables. This further suggests potential nuances between conscientiousness and grit. It may be that grit represents a narrower skill set that is not fully capable of effectively addressing all of the challenges associated with successful career pursuit, whereas conscientiousness represents a broader spectrum of attitudes and behaviors that are better suited for adaptively advancing one’s career (MacCann, Duckworth, and Roberts, 2009). Conscientiousness, by definition, is the propensity to organize, control impulses, delay gratification, and follow rules, while grit is defined more specifically as perseverance and passion towards a long-term goal (Roberts, Jackson, Fayard, Edmonds, & Meints, 2009; Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, & Kelly, 2007). For example, continuing to persist with career goal pursuit in the context of high physical anxiety, which may narrow one’s focus, may not be helpful without additional abilities to pause, reflect, and consider additional options.

At the same time, grit may still be helpful in contexts that do not feature a specific vulnerability to physical anxiety, as evidenced by the main effects found between grit and career satisfaction when accounting for trait anxiety, rejection sensitivity, and implicit rejection sensitivity in this study. These findings are in line with a study by Singh and Jha (2008) who found a positive correlation between grit and life satisfaction, which referred to an individual’s subjective, global evaluation of their quality of life, often encompassing general affect, experiences, and aspirations. It stands to reason that individuals who are more persistent in pursuing desired goals might be more likely to achieve them, and thus attain greater related work/life satisfaction overall. The nuanced findings of this study suggest that future research should continue to examine grit and additional sub-traits of conscientiousness in relation to anxiety and occupational outcomes in order to gain a better understanding of the complexities of such relationships.

There are also several limitations of these findings to note. Although this study found several long-term predictions from anxiety, personality, and ER/coping variables to occupational outcomes, conclusions concerning causality cannot be drawn from naturalistic longitudinal studies such as this. Therefore, it is possible that anxiety, personality, and ER/coping may not directly cause changes in the occupational outcomes of young adults, but instead, indicate the presence of other characteristics that affect professional ambition, performance, and satisfaction. Moreover, participants in this study did not necessarily have clinical levels of anxiety, suggesting the possibility that results may be more understated than if a clinical population had been utilized. Future research should aim to replicate these findings with a sample of people with diagnosed anxiety disorders to see if these effects are more pronounced or perhaps different in unexpected ways. Furthermore, future studies should also consider collecting employer feedback when examining occupational outcomes. This may be a more valid method of understanding how well an anxious individual is adapting in the workforce, since self-reports can reflect bias and peers may be less valid reporters than employers who interact with individuals daily in a professional context. It is also worthwhile to note that participants in this study were in their late 20s when occupational outcomes were assessed, and thus in the earlier stages of their careers. Therefore, feelings of career satisfaction are limited to this timeframe and may not necessarily reflect long-term attitudes beyond this period. In addition, participants’ professions were not specified in the current study when assessing outcomes. It is possible that people with anxiety may thrive more in certain types of occupations. Thus, future studies should examine specific professions when studying people with anxiety disorders.

Despite the limitations in this study, the results are consistent with the existing literature suggesting that anxiety negatively affects occupational outcomes and that certain personality traits and ER/coping skills can mitigate symptoms of anxiety. If replicated by further research, these findings have significant implications for anxious individuals and their employers. This study demonstrates the possibility that anxious individuals can find success and satisfaction in the workforce. Thus, employers should not necessarily discount a potential employee who exhibits signs of anxiety. Instead, they should look for the presence of personality traits such as conscientiousness and grit, as well as proficiency in employing emotion regulation and positive coping skills when making hiring decisions. In fact, it is interesting to consider the possibility that some anxiety, coupled with these traits and skills, may actually produce better work outcomes. These findings also suggest that interventions that target the development of emotional and coping skills may help anxious individuals achieve success and satisfaction in their chosen profession. These interventions could be used in schools as preventative measures for anxious adolescents, or they could be tailored to help anxious adults who are struggling in the workforce. In this way, quality of life and productivity can be improved to benefit society overall.

Table 2.

Predicting Occupational Outcomes from Trait Anxiety Interacting with Coping, ER, Conscientiousness, and Grit.

	Ambition			Work Performance			Job Satisfaction			Career Satisfaction
	β final	ΔR2	R2	β final	ΔR2	R2	β final	ΔR2	R2	β final	ΔR2	R2
Step 1.			.03			.01			.01			.00
Gender	.07			−.02			.00			−.12
Income	.03			.00			.06			−.08
Step 2.		.02	.05		.00	.01		.03*	.04		.06**	.06
Trait Anxiety (18)	−.05			.04			−.14			−.10
Step 3.		.10**	.15**		.07	.08		.05	.09*		.17***	.23***
Coping (26)	.32***			.32**			.20			.14
Emotion Regulation (26)	.10			−.13			.07			.04
Conscientiousness (26)	−.05			−.02			.09			.11
Grit (27)	.04			.06			−.01			.29**
Step. 5		.07*	.22***		.11	.19		.05	.14*		.00	.23***
Trait Anxiety (18)  X Coping (26)	−.02			.08			.13			.00
Trait Anxiety (18)  X Emotion Reg. (26)	.23*			.14			.12			−.04
Trait Anxiety (18)  X Conscientiousness (26)	−.01			.12			−.22			.03
Trait Anxiety (18)  X Grit (27)	.12			.05			.16			.01

Note. Gender coded as: 1 = males, 2 = females;

^*p ≤ .05

^**p ≤ .01

^***p ≤ .001.

Table 3.

Predicting Occupational Outcomes from Anxious Arousal Interacting with Coping, ER, Conscientiousness, and Grit.

	Ambition			Work Performance			Job Satisfaction			Career Satisfaction
	β final	ΔR2	R2	β final	ΔR2	R2	β final	ΔR2	R2	β final	ΔR2	R2
Step 1.			.03			.01			.01			.00
Gender	.00			−.08			−.04			−.05
Income	−.07			−.04			.02			.02
Step 2.		.00	.03		.00	.01		.02	.03		.01	.01
Anxious Arousal (18)	.00			−.07			−.18*			−.17
Step 3.		.11**	.14**		.07	.08		.08*	.11*		.21***	.22***
Coping (26)	.38***			.35**			.20			.10
Emotion Regulation (26)	.07			−.18			.05			.20*
Conscientiousness (26)	−.04			−.06			.13			.24*
Grit (27)	.13			.11			.10			.07
Step. 5		.08*	.22***		.05	.13*		.05	.16**		.17	.39***
Anxious Arousal (18)  X Coping (26)	−.04			.03			.22			−.08
Anxious Arousal (18)  X Emotion Reg. (26)	−.10			−.26			−.37			.62***
Anxious Arousal (18)  X Conscientiousness (26)	.30**			.19			.06			.12
Anxious Arousal (18)  X Grit (27)	.06			.17			.05			−.44**

Note. Gender coded as: 1 = males, 2 = females;

^*p ≤ .05

^**p ≤ .01

^***p ≤ .001

Table 4.

Predicting Occupational Outcomes from Rejection Sensitivity Interacting with Coping, ER, Conscientiousness, and Grit.

	Ambition			Work Performance			Job Satisfaction			Career Satisfaction
	β final	ΔR2	R2	β final	ΔR2	R2	β final	ΔR2	R2	β final	ΔR2	R2
Step 1.			.03			.01			.01			.00
Gender	.09			−.01			.02			−.07
Income	.02			.02			.06			−.04
Step 2.		.00	.03		.00	.01		.00	.01		.01	.01
Rejection Sensitivity (18)	.02			.09			.01			.14
Step 3.		.12***	.15**		.07	.08		.07*	.08		.22***	.23***
Coping (26)	.28**			.29**			.13			.11
Emotion Regulation (26)	.09			−.17			.09			.08
Conscientiousness (26)	−.03			−.03			.09			.11
Grit (27)	.11			.06			.06			.32**
Step. 5		.00	.15**		.07	.15*		.05	.13*		.01	.24***
Rejection Sensitivity (18)  X Coping (26)	.02			.12			.19			−.07
Rejection Sensitivity (18)  X Emotion Reg. (26)	−.06			−.26*			−.16			.06
Rejection Sensitivity (18)  X Conscientiousness (26)	−.12			−.09			−.24			−.06
Rejection Sensitivity (18)  X Grit (27)	.11			.08			.17			.00

Note. Gender coded as: 1 = males, 2 = females;

^*p ≤ .05

^**p ≤ .01

^***p ≤ .001.

Table 5.

Predicting Occupational Outcomes from Implicit Rejection Sensitivity Interacting with Coping, ER, Conscientiousness, and Grit.

	Ambition			Work Performance			Job Satisfaction			Career Satisfaction
	β final	ΔR2	R2	β final	ΔR2	R2	β final	ΔR2	R2	β final	ΔR2	R2
Step 1.			.03			.01			.01			.00
Gender	.08			−.05			−.02			−.11
Income	−.01			−.02			.00			−.06
Step 2.		.00	.03		.02	.03		.00	.01		.01	.01
Implicit Rej. Sens. (18)	−.04			.14			.04			.16
Step 3.		.12**	.15**		.08	.11		.07*	.08		.22***	.23***
Coping (26)	.33***			.25*			.16			.08
Emotion Regulation (26)	.08			−.13			.06			.04
Conscientiousness (26)	−.03			.10			.14			.20
Grit (27)	.14			−.03			.05			.31**
Step. 5		.05	.20**		.10	.21*		.06	.14*		.10	.33***
IRS (18)  X Coping (26)	.02			−.12			−.15			−.22
IRS (18)  X Emotion Reg. (26)	.17			.38**			.17			.04
IRS (18)  X Conscientiousness (26)	−.21			.10			−.08			−.09
IRS (18)  X Grit (27)	.09			−.14			.11			−.05

Note. Gender coded as: 1 = males, 2 = females;

^*p ≤ .05

^**p ≤ .01

^***p ≤ .00