The Structural Relationship among Career-Related Mentoring, Ambiguity Tolerance, and Job Search Effort and Behavior of Korean College Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study examines the relationship between career related mentoring and ambiguity tolerance, as well as job-search effort  and behavior,aiming at  understanding how to better assist undergraduate college students achieve preliminary job search success. Results could be used by universities to develop/improve early  career mentoring programs for students since their academic start. 

I have appreciated the good structuring of paper, as well as the clear and synthetic presentation of hypothesis and results. Continuation for study with samples involving students approaching graduation and recent graduates is needed. 

The study was conducted about 5 years ago. If technology and labor market recent development are considered, I recommend to conduct a new study covering both new university entrants as well as students approaching graduation. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors describe and explore an interesting topic. It is beneficial for the scientific and professional community. The article shows quality and deserves to be published.

Nevertheless, I must point out a few inaccuracies:

• In the introduction on line 74, there is an extra connection "2. Material and Methods" that should be deleted.
• It is not appropriate to combine the title of the chapter "Theoretical Background and Formulation of Hypothesis", only the Literature Review or Theoretical Background should appear here.
  I recommend separating the Hypothesis part as a separate chapter / subchapter.
• Designation of sources of literature in the text - the prescribed format is not observed, ie cross-references. It must also be modified in the bibliography according to the order of the source in the text.

In my opinion, after revising the article, it will be possible to publish it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for this paper. It makes an interesting point and uses solid empirical basis. I would like to recommend, however, a number of changes and turn your attention to parts which, in my view are not sufficiently clear.

Introduction

This part of your paper requires improvement. I notice a number of statements which are loosely related with each other and do not make a coherent whole. For example in the first paragraph you write that “  adults in this age group search for jobs requiring substantial preliminary experience, as they see knowledge about their future role as essential for a life-long career.” How are this or following sentences related to the aim of your paper?

 

In page 2, lines 55-60 you explain the context of the study. While it is overall reasonable to do, there is a logical gap between the second and the last sentence. Also when you refer to Endres et al (2009) it seems like a mental shortcut as their paper doesn’t deal with job search process.

I would say that the introduction would benefit from greater coherence but also from greater focus on mentoring and its possible career effects. What we know and what we don’t. I think you might refer to papers not yet mentioned, such as Renn et al. (2014).

 

Theoretical framework

The first issue as regards theoretical framework is lack of clarity in respect to theoretical foundations of your research. While you refer to self-regulations theory here or there this is not done in a coherent manner. I recommend that you explain how self-regulation theory informs your research.

For example when you refer to Bandura when justifying H1 I would expect a more direct explanation of how his theoretical thoughts are transferred into the context of your study. I think that you can also find more papers to support your arguments concerning H1. Please consider for example Xu and Adams (2020) who show a negative relationship between ambiguity aversion and job search self-efficacy. If you distinguish between job search effort and job search behavior (p.3, line 107) shouldn’t you propose two hypotheses 1a and 1b?

 

Part of you justification for H2 (page 3, line 136-139) includes sentences which are vaguely related to ambiguity tolerance. In line 139 you refer moderation by mentoring. I suggest not to use the word moderated in this context.

In justifying H3 I believe that your justification is not sufficiently focused on the relationship between ambiguity tolerance and job search effort. Many of your comments refer to a link between ambiguity tolerance and self-efficacy. How are they related to job-search effort? Please explain.

 

In section 2.2. I would expect to read not what you examined (See the first sentence) but what you aim to examine and why. Overall the first paragraph of this section is unclear. I don’t see how this is linked to H4. Similarly following  arguments are weakly related to what you hypothesize below. Only in the third paragraph I see a stronger logical link although it is clearly incomplete. I need to mention also that the last but one sentence of this paragraph (The relationship between mentoring and job-search effort and behavior may have a stronger effect on students with high ambiguity tolerance) suggests a moderation and not a mediation effect. To conclude, justification of H4 needs to be thoroughly revised.

 

Overall hypotheses justification could be strengthened in terms of clarity and logical coherence.

 

Methodology

I think that a few words of explanation about mentoring programs employed by universities from which respondents come would be helpful. At this stage you only inform that there exist such programs but we learn nothing about their nature, who are mentors etc.

Can you please explain the way in which you adopted Crisp’s (2009) College Student Mentoring Scale? I would suggest to include the items used in your research as an Appendix. The original scale did not refer to a mentor as such while you do. Why? In case of your study having a mentor seems to be one of criteria for respondent inclusion. If all respondents had mentors then what exactly did you measure with this scale? Furthermore, table 1  reveals 4 subcomponents of mentoring which you don’t mention in the text. If you did they could, perhaps, serve as an answer to the question above.

Table 1 presents also four latent variables for mentoring and three for ambiguity (preference, tolerance and aversion). In turn in the Methodology section you refer only to six items of ambiguity tolerance. I cannot understand what you really tested. Relationship of mentoring (as a single construct or 4 subconstructs?) with ambiguity tolerance, preference or aversion?

Last but not least, I wonder if a PLS SEM approach could not be superior to the covariance based SEM applied in this study.  A PLS SEM approach would for example allow to control for the impact of students’ year of study on their job search efforts, something you mention in the Discussion.

 

Discussion

In the discussion you assert that mediation by ambiguity tolerance can be explained by self-regulation theory. Can you please expand why and how?

The literature supporting the link which you make between mentoring and ambiguity tolerance in the section on theoretical implications should be used in hypotheses development. Theoretical implications could be expanded.

In practical implications you mention “mentoring to student ambiguity tolerance, …. might be regarded as one of the most important competencies related to job search activities in tough economic times”

 

To conclude, I think that your paper has a potential to make a contribution. Good luck in its further development.

 

Technical comments:

In page 2, line 74 words 2. Materials and methods should be deleted.

Literature mentioned in the review:

Renn, R. W., Steinbauer, R., Taylor, R., & Detwiler, D. (2014). School-to-work transition: Mentor career support and student career planning, job search intentions, and self-defeating job search behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(3), 422-432.

Xu, H., & Adams, P. (2020). Ambiguity aversion in career decision-making: Its longitudinal prediction for college career outcomes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 67(2), 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000379

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for exhaustive response and implemented changes. I believe that you have sufficiently addressed my comments and the resulting paper makes a more compelling case. Thank you and good luck.