1

THE NATURE OF INTERESTS

Toward a Unifying Theory of Trait-State Interest Dynamics

Rong Su

TIPPIE COLLEGE OF BUSINESS, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA

Gundula Stoll

UNIVERSITY OF TüBINGEN

James Rounds

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

The field of research on vocational interests has made significant progress over the last century. Interest research stemmed from an empirical measurement tradition to address the need of career guidance at the beginning of the twentieth century and accelerated in the late 1930s thanks to E. K. Strong’s (1943) pioneering work on the criterion-related validity of interest assessment. In recent years, there is a resurgence in the study of vocational interests in industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology in light of burgeoning meta-analytic evidence on the relationship between interests and job performance (Nye, Su, Rounds, & Drasgow, 2012, 2017; Van Iddekinge, Roth, Putka, & Lanivich, 2011) and evidence on the incremental validity of interests over cognitive ability and personality traits for predicting performance and career success (Rounds & Su, 2014; Stoll et al., 2017; Van Iddekinge, Putka, & Campbell, 2011). Following the empirical tradition in interest research, most interest theories to date have focused on the mechanisms and boundary conditions for the relationship between interests and educational or occupational outcomes (e.g., Holland, 1959, 1997; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994). However, theories about the nature of interests have lagged behind. Many scholars in the field lament the “dustbowl empiricism” in interest research and the underdevelopment of conceptual understandings of interests (e.g., Dawis, 1980; Savickas, 1999; Silvia, 2001a). What are interests? What psychological processes are involved in the experience and expression of interests? How do interests develop and to what extent can they change? Where are interests situated within the nomological network of traits and motives (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Armstrong, Day, McVay, & Rounds, 2008)? Lack of knowledge about these fundamental questions will not only impede further advancement of interest research but also hinder successful development and application of interest assessment in the workplace.

In this chapter, we begin to establish a theoretical framework of what interests are, how interests are represented and organized in the human mind, and where interests are positioned in the nomological network. We integrate research from educational psychology and vocational psychology, in which interests are conceptualized as states and traits, respectively. We incorporate insights from other fields—notably, behavioral genetics, cognitive psychology, and developmental psychology—to bridge the state and trait perspectives on interests and to develop theoretical propositions that establish an integrative framework. Some of the fundamental issues addressed in the current chapter will be further elaborated on in other chapters of this book. Below, we first present an overview of current conceptualizations of interests, followed by a discussion of our proposed theoretical framework and a series of specific propositions.

Current Conceptualizations of Interests

Vocational interests have been defined as “trait-like preferences to engage in activities, contexts in which activities occur, or outcomes associated with preferred activities that motivate goal-oriented behaviors and orient individuals toward certain environments” (Rounds & Su, 2014, p. 98). These preferences are not simply characterized by the experience of enjoyment, but are more strongly associated with prolonged attention to objects of interest, a sense of curiosity, and persistent engagement in tasks and activities, even when they are complex or perplexing (Silvia, 2008; Turner & Silvia, 2006). As such, interests serve as a source of intrinsic motivation that drives the direction, effort, and persistence of human behaviors, knowledge acquisition, and performance on tasks (Su & Nye, 2017).

At the core of this definition of interests, and what distinguishes interests from other individual differences, is the idea that interests describe not only people but also their relationships with external environments. In other words, interests are contextualized and capture individuals’ reactions toward target objects (Rounds & Su, 2014). An object of interest may be a task (e.g., “repair a car engine”) or a work setting in which an individual is involved (e.g., “serve on the board of a large organization”). When interests are measured, these objects are often used as stimuli (items) and individuals indicate how they feel about each of the stimuli (items) using a Likert-type scale or a forced-choice scale. Responses to interest items are then scored into scales that represent interest constructs at various levels of specificity.

Defining interests as preferences for (work) activities and contexts is useful for the purposes of interest assessment and career guidance. However, to unpack the nature and meaning of interests, we need to answer further-reaching questions: What are the bases for individuals’ preferences for various objects? How does an individual decide how to respond to a specific item and whether he/she prefers one item over another? Where does the information come from and how is this information stored? Do those responses represent meaningful latent traits of the individual and, if they do, can they be modified over time and change across situations? As Silvia (2001a) eloquently articulated, answering these questions about interests is not just valuable in itself, but may also serve as a vehicle for exploring broader theoretical quests and help us understand the dynamic relationship between transient experiences, cognitions, emotions, and relatively enduring individual differences.

Thus far, the way interest researchers approach the above questions and conceptualize interests has been largely dependent on their disciplinary affiliations and research traditions (for a comprehensive review of extant theoretical perspectives, see Renninger & Hidi, 2011). Most of these perspectives can be categorized into two approaches: interest as a psychological state and interests as traits. As a psychological state, interest is referred to as situational interest and is used in the singular form. Situational interest is defined as momentary feelings of curiosity, fascination, and enjoyment triggered by an environment or a task (e.g., Ainley, 2007; Krapp, 2007; Silvia, 2008). In addition to the affective component, situational interest may also involve cognitive evaluations of the value or importance of the environment or task (Eccles et al., 1983; Schiefele, 1991). Alternatively, interests have been conceptualized as traits or predispositions to reengage in activities or environments that individuals prefer (e.g., Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Holland, 1959, 1997; Lubinski, 2000; Savickas & Spokane, 1999; Rounds & Su, 2014). As traits, interests are referred to as dispositional interests or individual interests and are used in the plural form. Despite being frequently debated, these two approaches are not incompatible with each other. We see the two approaches as capturing different aspects of the nature of interests: the trait perspective mainly focuses on the origin and function of interests, whereas the state perspective primarily focuses on the experience and development of interest. Both perspectives, however, emphasize the importance of the object of interest, describe interests not just as characteristics of individuals but individuals in relation to their environments, and highlight links between interest and motivation, learning, and achievement in academic and work contexts.

A Theory of Trait-State Interest Dynamics

Figure 1.1 depicts our proposed theoretical framework on the origin, function, experience, and development of interests, termed the Trait-State Interest Dynamics. The section of the framework above the dotted line is a representation of the trait perspective, and the section below the dotted line is a representation of the state perspective. We propose that interests are traits embedded in socio-cultural contexts (Proposition 1); interests serve motivational functions by directing and sustaining individuals’ effort and engagement in various activities and environments (Proposition 2); the experience of interest in specific situations as a collection of affective and cognitive responses further determines individuals’ behaviors (Proposition 3) and helps shape existing mental representations of interests (Proposition 4); and through this dynamic process of person–environment interaction, either direct or vicarious, interests develop as an integral part of an individual’s identity (Propositions 5 & 6). Below we elaborate on these theoretical propositions.

FIGURE 1.1 A Theoretical Framework of Trait-Situation Interest Dynamics.

Proposition 1: Interests are traits embedded in socio-cultural contexts. Observed, relatively stable individual differences in interests are a result of both nature and nurture

Two types of evidence are relevant for inferring the degree to which a psychological construct is a trait (Tellegen, 1991): (1) the extent to which observed (phenotypic) differences in the psychological construct among individuals are stable over time and across situations, and (2) the extent to which those phenotypic differences are attributable to genetic versus nongenetic sources. Between-individual differences in personality traits, for example, have been found to be fairly stable, with rank-order stability peaking in the .70s after age 50 (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). Heritability for personality traits has generally been found to be around .40-.50 (Bouchard, 1997), meaning that close to half of the between-person variances in personality is attributable to genetic influences while the other half is attributable to environmental factors.

Statistics on the stability and heritability of interests are very similar to what have been reported in personality research. Rank-order stability of interests was in fact found to be higher than that of personality traits for every age group before age 30 and to peak at .70 for the age group of 22–29 years old (Low, Yoon, Roberts, & Rounds, 2005). There have also been a series of behavioral genetics studies to date showing that genetic influences on interests are approximately as strong as those on personality traits (Betsworth et al., 1994; Harris, Vernon, Johnson, & Jang, 2006; Kandler, Bleidorn, Riemann, Angleitner, & Spinath, 2011; Lykken, Bouchard, McGue, & Tellegen, 1993; Moloney, Bouchard, & Segal, 1991; Schermer & Vernon, 2008). Importantly, these studies have found that interests share some common genetic influences with personality traits (Harris et al., 2006) and that only a modest amount of the genetic variance in interests can be explained by the interaction between personality genotypes and environmental influences. Taken together, these findings suggest that interests are dispositional in nature. Counter to previous views that interests are the byproducts or workplace instantiations of basic personality traits (e.g., Holland, 1997; McCrae & Costa, 1990), interests have a unique genetic basis and serve unique motivational functions in driving human behaviors (see Proposition 2).

As traits, interests do not exist in a vacuum. We view interests as an integral part of an individual’s identity that is composed of a myriad of traits connected with each other (i.e., trait complexes, Ackerman, 2003; or trait constellations, Armstrong et al., 2008) as well as self-concepts and social roles to which individuals subscribe (e.g., Eagly & Karau, 2002; Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, & Blumenfeld, 1993; Gottfredson, 1981, 2005; Hogan & Blake, 1999; Marsh, Trautwein, Lüdtke, Köller, & Baumert, 2005; Super, 1963; Tyler, 1955). As we examine the dispositional nature of interests, it is important to clarify that relative stability and heritability of traits does not imply that traits are set in stone and do not change at all. This is a common misunderstanding characterizing many scholarly debates over whether a psychological construct is a trait or simply a state activated by specific situations (Kenrick & Funder, 1988). Personality traits and interests do change in meaningful ways over time at the within-person level (e.g., Hoff, Briley, Wee, & Rounds, 2018; Roberts, Luo, Briley, Chow, Su, & Hill, 2017; Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006). In the case of interest development, it is closely associated with the development of knowledge, cognitive ability, and personality (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997). Individuals are also motivated to maintain and develop interests in ways that are consistent with their existing self-concepts and social roles (Eccles et al., 1993; Gottfredson, 1981, 2005; Super, 1963; Tyler, 1955).

Super (1963) viewed vocational development as the implementation of self-concept, which includes self-actualization needs and role expectations of important persons such as parents. Other theorists have emphasized the impact of socio-cultural contexts. Leona Tyler (1955), for example, found that children at an early age reported interests in activities that were consistent with their sex roles “as if at this stage boys and girls were certain about repudiating things characteristic of the opposite sex” (pp. 40–41). In the Theory of Circumscription and Compromise, Linda Gottfredson (1981, 2005) elaborated on this perspective and maintained that the expression of vocational interests is constrained by the broader social order that individuals try to adjust to and fit in. Variables such as gender and social class dictate one’s place in the society (“social space”) and the range of activities or occupations that one would consider as acceptable for oneself. In other words, individuals act on their interests and, in this process, shape their interests, according to the scripts and boundaries imposed by their socio-cultural contexts. We depict interest traits (box with solid lines) as embedded in the influence of broader socio-cultural contexts (box with dashed lines) in Figure 1.1.

Proposition 2: Interests serve motivational functions that drive individuals’ self-selection into certain external environments, effort and engagement with activities in those environments, and performance outcomes

Both state and trait perspectives have emphasized the volitional nature of interests. Arnold (1906a, 1906b), for example, described interest as a striving or a conative tendency toward an anticipated gratification. Similarly, Dewey (1913) commented that interest signifies an “organic union” among the person, the materials (that is, the objects of interest to the person), and the results of action (p. 17). This union means that interest marks “an identification in action, and hence in desire, effort, and thought, of self with objects; namely, with the objects in which the activity terminates (ends) and with the objects by which it is carried forward to its end (means)” (p. 90). Strong (1943, p. 17) famously analogized interests as the rudder of a motorboat, which determines the boat’s direction, whereas abilities, like the motor of the boat, determines the boat’s speed in the chosen direction. Fryer (1931, p. 352) maintained that “once initiated, interest provides its own quantitative energy or motivational drive in proportion to the strength of acceptance (of the target object).”

The above views highlighted three motivational properties of interests. First, interests steer the direction of behaviors. Direction of behavior is implied in individuals’ choice of broad environments (e.g., Katherine strives to be an engineer instead of a musician) and in the engagement in specific experiences and tasks (e.g., as an engineer, Katherine is drawn to designing machines and structures more so than interacting with clients). Second, the strength of interests is reflected in the amount of energy or vigor in individuals’ striving (e.g., the more Katherine is interested in designing machines and structures, the greater amount of time and effort she invests in collecting and reading books and articles on this topic). Third, interests are usually associated with end goals and will sustain effort until end goals are met. The association between interests and goals, much like a vector “pointing ahead and to the future” (Arnold, 1906b, p. 299), not only directs and energizes behaviors, but also defines the duration of behavioral effort till goal attainment. On a micro scale, when a task of interest is clearly specified (e.g., reading an article about the challenges of building a multiple-span cable-stayed bridge), interest will motivate a goal-oriented behavior until the task is completed. On a macro scale, having a dispositional interest in an area often means that it will repeatedly incite striving over time and across a series of similar situations that involve goal-oriented behaviors until a long-term goal is achieved (e.g., receive a PhD degree or attain a dream job).

These three motivational functions of interests (Rounds & Su, 2014; Su & Nye, 2017) have been supported by empirical studies on the relationship between interest(s) and individuals’ choice of environment as well as individuals’ effort in the environment both on a micro and on a macro scale. Accumulating evidence from the education literature has shown that interest is associated with heightened attention to objects, deepened engagement with and processing of reading materials, and increased time and effort devoted to tasks (Hidi, 1990; Schiefele, 1991; Silvia, 2008). Research from vocational psychology and I-O psychology has consistently linked interests with choice of academic majors and occupations (Strong, 1943; Campbell, 1971) and effort and performance in both academic and work environments (Nye et al., 2012, 2017; Van Iddkinge, Campbell, et al., 2011; Van Iddekinge, Roth, et al., 2011). Figure 1.1 depicts the motivational functions and outcomes of interests. We will discuss the overlap and differences between interests and other motivational constructs in the next section when we position interests in the nomological network.

Proposition 3: Interests are experienced as a collection of affective reactions and cognitive evaluations toward objects in external environments. These affective and cognitive experiences jointly determine individuals’ behaviors

The primary difference between the trait perspective on interests and the state perspective on interest is whether a researcher focuses on consistent conative tendencies across situations over time or a context-specific experience. Schiefele (1991) distinguished dispositional interests from situational interest by defining the former as “latent characteristics” that represent relatively long-term orientations of an individual toward certain types of objects or activities, and referring to the latter as “actualized individual interest” that represents the manifestations of individual interests in a specific context (pp. 302–304). In fact, when discussing situational interest, some researchers prefer the term to be interested over the noun to emphasize the experience of interest in the moment (Kitson, 1925).

So, what does the experience of interest entail? Even for scholars who take the state perspective on interest, the answers are different. Mainly, the experience of interest has been theorized either as feelings (e.g., Izard, 1977; Silvia, 2001a) or as cognitions (e.g., Eccles et al., 1983; Schiefele, 2001, 2009). Izard (1977) provided a description that nicely summarized the experience of interest at the affect level: “At the experiential level interest… is the feeling of being engaged, caught-up, fascinated, curious. There is a feeling of wanting to investigate, become involved, or extend or expand the self by incorporating new information and having new experiences with the person or object that has stimulated the interest. In intense interest or excitement, the person feels animated and enlivened. It is this enlivenment that guarantees the association between interest and cognitive or motor activity. Even when relatively immobile the interested or excited person has the feeling that he is ‘alive and active’” (p. 216). There are several key points in this description of interest. First, interest has a positive valence. It entails a positive feeling toward the object or task of interest, such that the person wants to know more about it and be involved with it. When engaged in the task of interest or being in a context that arouses interest, this positive feeling reinforces that experience so that the person desires to reengage in similar experiences. Second, interest is different from other positive feelings such as pleasure or satisfaction in that it is the feeling of engagement and curiosity (Silvia, 2001a, 2008). It marks the start, rather than the end, of an individual’s cognitive and behavioral pursuit of an object of interest. It is associated with a level of discontentment that motivates the individual to invest more time and effort in the object. As Magda Arnold (1960) has argued, to be interested is to want to know more, not to have or possess (and be happy and content about it). Third, interest, even when conceptualized as an affective state, is closely tied to cognition. It is well established in the education literature that interest narrows the perceptual field, focuses attention, and deepens cognitive processing (e.g., Hidi, 1990; Schiefele, 1991). Interest is key to knowledge acquisition and cognitive development (Denissen, Zarrett, & Eccles, 2007; Su & Nye, 2017). Therefore, although interests are frequently labeled and studied as “non-cognitive attributes” in the I-O literature to distinguish the role of interests from that of cognitive abilities, understanding the link between interest and cognition in the work setting is critical for unpacking the relationship between interests and performance.

Aside from feelings of engagement and curiosity, the experience of interest also involves cognitive appraisals of the object of interest as well as the object in relation to oneself. The first layer in the cognitive component of interest captures subjective beliefs about the positive value of an object. Schiefele (2009), for example, described interest as “a set of value beliefs” that requires continuous cognitive processing and, when activated in a context, directly impacts individuals’ intrinsic motivation. Similarly, Eccles et al. (1983) used the term “intrinsic value” to describe individuals’ interest in a task and proposed that perceived intrinsic value—along with attainment value (perceived importance) and utility value (perceived instrumentality)—of the task drives individuals’ motivation and achievement behaviors. The cognitive appraisal of an object’s positive value is at the consciousness level but is closely associated with spontaneous affective responses. The second layer in the cognitive component of interest, which is discussed less frequently in the literature, captures a sense of meaning or worth provided by an object and the closeness of the object to one’s self-concept (Dewey, 1913; Super, 1963). In other words, in the first cognitive appraisal, individuals ask the question “Is this object intriguing?” whereas in the second cognitive appraisal, individuals process questions like “Is this object meaningful to me?” “Is my interest in this object compatible with my existing self-concept and social roles?” “Do I identify with this object?” It is at this stage of cognitive evaluation that objects perceived as compatible with an existing self-concept are incorporated and those perceived as incompatible are rejected, even if they possess positive valence emotionally and cognitively. For example, a girl may highly enjoy computer programming but rejects it because of its perceived incompatibility with her gender role (Eccles et al., 1983; Gottfredson, 2005).

We maintain that affective and cognitive processes are both essential to the interest experience and jointly affect individual behaviors in external environments. Positive emotions and cognitive appraisals not only promote individuals’ engagement and persistence in an activity in the moment, but also reinforce individuals’ interest in the activity and motivate individuals to pursue similar activities in the future. In Figure 1.1, these affective and cognitive processes are represented as “the experience of situational interest at T₁ (T₂, …, T_i).” Next, we describe how these affective reactions and cognitive evaluations of objects are stored in the human mind, how these mental representations are organized, and how existing mental units are expanded or adjusted with new experiences and information about new objects.

Proposition 4: Individual interests are organized as abstract mental representations of external objects and activities. New experiences with similar objects and activities can strengthen or refine these mental representations

The experience of interest is idiosyncratic to each individual. The same object or situation may elicit vastly different reactions from different people. Even the most intriguing piece of art may encounter an indifferent viewer, and even the most boring lecture may find an avid listener. The fact that interests are trait-like and are affected by genetic influences means that individuals are predisposed to like or dislike certain types of objects, activities, or environments. In other words, dispositional interests set the baseline for individuals’ affective and cognitive reactions in a given situation, such that some people have a general tendency to enjoy art while others lack that tendency. On the other hand, two people with the exact same genotype may have different expressions of interests. Imagine Katherine and her identical twin sister Kristen, who share a strong dispositional interest in mechanical activities—tinkering with gadgets and tools, playing with various materials, building things by hand—and were reared apart by two families. Katherine’s parents discovered her interest in this area and took her to the Museum of Science and Industry, signed her up for summer camps on robotics, and bought her LEGO kits and played with her. Meanwhile, Kristen, whose adoptive father owned an auto shop, let her play with tools in the shop, taught her how to fix broken machines, and built things with her using spare parts. Although Katherine and Kristen had very different experiences growing up and were exposed to different activities, they have both been able to strengthen their interests in mechanical activities and are both excited to fulfill their interests in this domain with additional experiences. What happened for Katherine and Kristen, we argue, was that over time they both formed a mental representation of mechanical activities, albeit through different examples in this abstract category.

We propose that individual interests are organized into and stored as abstract, schematic mental representations of homogenous groups of objects and activities in external environments, such as mechanical activities, mathematics, finance, and teaching. Each mental representation (schema) contains incidents of past experiences with similar objects and activities in that group. Stored in each incident is information about a particular object/activity as well as the individual’s affective reactions to and cognitive appraisals of it. Incidents within a schema can vary for every person due to exposure to different activities or access to different opportunities, as was the case for Katherine and Kristen. Nonetheless, individuals are able to generalize specific incidents to construct general impressions about and reactions to a class of homogeneous objects/activities. When an individual encounters a new object or activity, the affective and cognitive experience is assimilated into an existing schema, either strengthening or refining this mental representation. For example, Kristen may watch a documentary on how engineers use clues from the natural world in ingenious ways to develop new buildings and machines, completely fascinated and absorbed. This documentary thus reinforces Kristen’s interest in mechanical activities and, at the same time, broadens her mental representation of mechanical activities from her previous experiences related to automobiles to a more generalized category. In a sense, these generalized categories are akin to latent constructs, and individuals’ experiences with specific activities are akin to indicators of latent constructs. Forming these abstract mental representations is important, because it allows individuals to categorize new and unfamiliar objects/activities and anticipate reactions to them. As such, these abstract mental representations serve as a mechanism for selecting environments by directing individuals to engage in activities and contexts similar to those that interested them in the past. This process of interest development is shown in Figure 1.1 with repeated experiences over multiple time points from T₁ to T_i.

Our proposition is consistent with evidence from cognitive psychology, particularly in the area of impression formation (e.g., Brewer, 1988; Fiske, 1993; Smith & Zárate, 1992). Smith and Zárate (1992), for example, have shown that humans refer to specific accounts of experiences (“exemplars”) as well as abstract schematic knowledge to form perception and social judgment. Underneath the cognitive experience of interest is assimilation—the process of associating a new object or activity to a preexisting schema in mind (McDougall, 1960; Savickas, 1999). The role of affect in the process is to color the experience in a positive light and thus magnify its meaning to the individual. Silvan Tomkins (1987, 1991), in the script theory, proposed that individuals experience scenes, which are emotional “slices of life” as subjectively perceived, and connect one affect-laden scene with another to form scripts, which are groups of scenes based on shared features that provide “rules” (or meanings) to guide future behavior. Each script is subject to revision from the ongoing experience of emotional scenes that share a core theme (Silvia, 2001a). It is not difficult to draw the analogy between cognitive and affect theory: scenes are affect-coded exemplars in cognition, scripts are affect-coded schemata that organize scenes, and the assimilation of new objects and activities into existing schemata co-occurs with the magnification of positive emotions. Both cognitive and affect research support the idea that interests are organized hierarchically with abstract mental representations drawn from specific experiences. This research also suggests that, as abstract mental representations, interests can be shaped by specific incidents in an academic or work environment. An affective event experienced at work (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), for example, not only influences an individual’s job attitudes and performance behaviors but also has implications for the individual’s interest development. Below we elaborate on this point.

Proposition 5: Interest development is a dynamic process through person-environment interaction. Both direct and vicarious experiences can contribute to the maintenance and development of interests

According to script theory, the meaning of a script and its implications about the objects involved and the broader world extend beyond the simple collection of scenes within the script. A script provides a stable, guiding idea that predicts the course of future behaviors (Silvia, 2001a). The relative stability of scripts (i.e., abstract mental representations of interests) is important because it enables us to understand individuals’ choice, persistence, and performance in academic and work environments better than transient emotional and cognitive experiences and thus makes interest assessment useful tools for personnel selection, staffing, and other organizational functions. Meanwhile, scripts develop through repeated person–environment interaction: An existing script will influence individuals’ selection of and engagement in environments and activities, for example, making Kristen more likely to be drawn to a documentary on engineering marvels than one on political movements; experience in an environment and engagement in activities, in turn, will further shape that script, for example, watching the documentary furthers and solidifies the meaning of her existing script (i.e., interest in mechanical activities). Conversely, a negative affective or cognitive incident experienced at work may cause an individual to reevaluate his/her interest in the work activity/environment. For example, if Kristen gets an internship at an engineering firm and overhears her male colleagues discussing her not being a great fit because of her gender, this incident may lead to the experience of negative emotions and the perception of incompatibility between engineering and her identity, which, in turn, dampens her interest in this area. In summary, interests provide a relatively stable baseline for individuals’ attitudes and behaviors at work. Individuals’ experience at work with various job characteristics, peers and supervisors, and other contextual factors, on the other hand, triggers the process of adjusting the affective reaction to and cognitive appraisal of an external environment or object, allowing interest to develop in a dynamic, cyclical manner over time.

The dynamic process of interest development is depicted in Figure 1.1 as the loop between trait and state perspectives of interests. This process has been highlighted by theories from the state perspective, such as Hidi and Renninger’s (2006) four-phase model of interest development and Prenzel’s (1992) selective persistence model of interest. It is also implied by person-environment (P-E) fit theories from the trait perspective (e.g., Holland, 1959, 1997), in that individuals seek out academic and work environments that are congruent with their existing interests and positive outcomes resulting from P-E fit further reinforce these interests. Intervention studies have also shown that interest in a school subject or an occupational field can be increased by emphasizing its personal relevance (e.g., Harackiewicz, Rozek, Hulleman, & Hyde, 2012; Hulleman, Godes, Hendricks, & Harackiewicz, 2010; Hulleman & Harackiewicz, 2009) or its compatibility with personal goals (e.g., Diekman, Clark, Johnston, Brown, & Steinberg, 2011).

Given the key role of person-environment interaction in interest development, nearly all interest theories emphasize the necessity of reengagement in similar experiences and repeated interactions with objects/activities that elicit interest. Silvia (2001a, p. 285), for example, claimed that if “interest is not experienced in the context of an activity and magnified over time, an interest will not develop, regardless of why the feelings of interest arose in the first place.” Prenzel (1992) further suggested that an interest would dissipate without repeated engagement with an object/activity that provides a sense of novelty, complexity, and uncertainty. While we acknowledge the importance of repetition and magnification for interest development, we submit that both direct engagement with an object/activity and vicarious experiences may contribute to the maintenance and development of interests. Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) suggests that new associations may be established without direct experience of a behavior and its consequences but through observing an activity and forming the meaning of the activity symbolically. Therefore, visiting a museum exhibition, viewing a documentary, or watching someone else do an activity of interest to oneself may all elicit the same positive emotions and cognitive appraisals as directly engaging in the activity, providing vicarious reinforcement for existing interests.

Further, we submit that it is not necessary for interests to be constantly activated to be maintained. As previously discussed, interests are trait-like. Genetic influence provides a set point for the level of interest in an area. Once an individual forms the abstract mental representation of interest in this area (a latent construct), it will maintain its strength until the individual has an opportunity to reengage in another activity (an indicator of the latent construct), either directly or vicariously, and revisit the existing interest schema. Without being experienced or stimulated, individual interest in an area may be dormant for years, but will not dissipate. Evidence for this proposition comes from studies of individuals with severe physical disabilities (e.g., Krause & Clark, 2014; Rohe & Krause, 1998). These studies have found that, for individuals who suffered from traumatic spinal cord injuries, their interests stayed relatively stable despite their inability to participate in any interest-related activities. Future longitudinal studies with repeated measures of interests are needed to further test this proposition in other populations, particularly individuals who have gaps in career transitions and return to work after a period of unemployment.

Proposition 6: Interests develop in tandem with other parts of self-concept and identity, including abilities, values, and roles

Interests are an integral part of an individual’s identity. Previously we proposed that the experience of interest includes cognitive appraisals of the value of an object and its compatibility with oneself. Over the life span, individuals are likely to form mental representations of interests that are consistent with other parts of their self-concept (self-schemata). Individuals tend to be interested in areas where they are knowledgeable, do well, and have high self-perceived abilities (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Denissen et al., 2007). For example, Denissen and colleagues (2007) examined the longitudinal development of approximately 1,000 students between grades 1 and 12 (ages 6–17) and found that interests were positively associated with students’ self-concept of ability and academic achievement; more important, the within-person correlations among interests, self-concept of ability, and academic achievement increased over the course of 12 years. The increasing association between interests and abilities starts from an early age and continues throughout the life-span. Similarly, individuals tend to develop interests in areas that are perceived as compatible with their roles, scripts, and narratives determined by socio-cultural norms (e.g., gender role).

Our proposition is in line with studies on trait complexes and integrative theories of human development, such as Ackerman’s (1996) Process, Personality, Interests, and Knowledge (PPIK) model (also see von Stumm, & Ackerman, 2013), Snow’s aptitude complexes (Corno et al., 2002; Snow, Corno, & Jackson, 1996), and Holland’s (1959, 1997) characterizations of the six RIASEC vocational personality types (which comprise not only associations among preferences for certain activities, but also associations between preferences and certain personality traits, abilities and skills, self-competence beliefs, specific styles of problem solving, as well as values and life goals; cf. Stoll & Trautwein, 2017). These theories examine individual difference variables jointly and organize them into clusters based on their shared variances (for reviews, see Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Armstrong et al., 2008; and Mount, Barrick, Scullen, & Rounds 2005). We believe that interests are indicators for such trait complexes rather than isolated individual difference variables.

Studies on trait complexes and integrative frameworks of individual differences (e.g., Ackerman, 1996, 2003; Armstrong et al., 2008; Anthoney & Armstrong, 2010; Armstrong & Anthoney, 2009) provide a new approach to understanding the nature of interests. By empirically examining the correlates and overlaps between interests and other psychological constructs such as personality traits and cognitive abilities, these integrative studies highlighted the importance of studying interest development across the life span and provided information on what individual difference variables to target in longitudinal research. Importantly, the trait complexes may be the best way to predict complex educational and career behaviors including performance and career success (Armstrong, Su, & Rounds, 2011).

Interests in the Nomological Network

Against the backdrop of the above propositions, we examine the nomological network in the second part of this chapter and discuss the similarities and differences between interests and related constructs. In the following, we address the relationships between interests and personality traits, cognitive abilities, motivation, values, goals, and intentions (expressed interests).

Interests and Personality Traits

Interests and personality traits are similar in that they both reflect important aspects of individual differences (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005; Low et al., 2005; Lubinski, 2000). This similarity has been overlooked for a long time, as traditional models of personality (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1990) regarded the Big Five personality dimensions as the core of traits, and regarded motivational constructs—that is, interests—as “downstream” instantiations of personality traits that are at a lower level of abstraction. This perspective is based on the assumption that motivational constructs are less stable and less heritable than the Big Five. However, as discussed previously, empirical findings do not support this assumption. Meta-analytic rank-order continuity coefficients were found to be higher for interests than for personality traits (Low et al., 2005) and heritability estimates of interests were found to be comparable (Betsworth et al., 1994; Lykken et al., 1993) or even higher (Kandler, Zimmermann, & McAdams, 2014) than those for personality traits. In line with these findings, newer theories like the neo-socioanalytic model of personality (Roberts & Wood, 2006; Roberts, Wood, & Caspi, 2008) conceptualize personality traits and motives (including interests) as parallel and separate domains of human functioning.

Meta-analytic results (Barrick, Mount, & Gupta, 2003) have demonstrated meaningful overlaps between vocational interest constructs in Holland’s (1959, 1997) RIASEC model and Big Five personality traits, such as those between Extraversion and Enterprising and Social interests (ρ = .41 and .29, respectively) and those between Openness to Experience and Artistic and Investigative Interests (ρ = .39 and .25, respectively). This overlap may be partially due to the similarities in the conceptualization of these constructs. Other correlations between vocational interests and personality traits were found to be modest, mostly around or below .10. These findings suggest that personality traits and interests reflect somewhat different aspects of a person: Personality traits focus on the person as a social actor (see Kandler et al., 2014). They comprise enduring patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Roberts & Wood, 2006) and describe how the person typically behaves and how the person is seen by others (or the self). Therefore, personality traits are essential for a person’s reputation in social groups—reflecting the extent to which the person is considered as, for example, sociable, hard-working, or impulsive. However, personality traits do not fully capture the core preferences and aspirations of a person (Fleeson, 2012). In contrast, interests—and other motivational constructs—focus on the person as a motivated agent and represent what a person wants in life and what a person aims to achieve or avoid.

As discussed earlier (see Proposition 4), interests are organized as abstract mental representations that serve as a mechanism for selecting environments. By directing individuals to engage in activities and contexts similar to those that interested them in the past, interests predict human behaviors in particular environments. This might also explain why interests were found to be stronger predictors of certain life outcomes than personality traits—especially if these outcomes were related to volitional choices and decisions (Stoll et al., 2017; Su, 2012).

Interests and Cognitive Abilities

Cognitive abilities represent another important domain of individual differences (Lubinski, 2000; Sackett, Lievens, Van Iddekinge, & Kuncel, 2017; Schmidt, 2014). Abilities reflect what a person can do, whereas interests reflect what a person wants to do (i.e., direction of effort), how hard the person tries (i.e., vigor of effort), and how long the effort is sustained (i.e., persistence of effort; Rounds & Su, 2014; Su & Nye, 2017). It is proposed that interests, personality traits, and abilities develop along with each other (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997). An individual’s level of ability and personality traits influence the probability to succeed in a specific task, whereas interests determine the motivational forces put forth toward the task.

Although interests have been discussed as part of individuals’ “non-cognitive” attributes, interests and cognitive abilities are mutually dependent (Su & Nye, 2017): On the one hand, a certain level of ability or knowledge is necessary for the development of interest in the first place; on the other hand, interest is an important precondition for skill- and knowledge development, as it facilitates more efficient seeking, acquisition, and organization of knowledge (Dewey, 1913; Hidi, 1990; Reeve, 1996; Schiefele, Krapp, & Winteler, 1992; Voss & Schauble, 1992). Interest leads to engagement in specific activities; whereas abilities enhance the probability of successful performance in these activities. Positive performance feedback will foster self-competence beliefs that, in turn, may reinforce the initial interest and foster its maintenance—leading to enduring interests (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Enduring interests then, again, lead to increased engagement in specific activities, which, along with experiences associated with these activities, lead to the acquisition of new skills and the accumulation of abilities in these areas.

To better understand the dynamic and reciprocal causal relationship between interests and cognitive abilities, we draw from Cattell’s (1963) investment theory that distinguishes between fluid intelligence (which is innate) and crystalized intelligence (which is acquired or learned). Investment theory postulates that individuals invest their fluid intelligence in the acquisition of crystalized intelligence. Empirical findings show that crystalized intelligence—manifested as skills and knowledge—is not solely caused by fluid intelligence, but also by a general interest in learning as well as specific interests—for example, RIASEC interests (see Schmidt, 2014, for a discussion). Specific interests are important for the development of crystalized intelligence in specific domains, as they lead people to engage in experiences in these domains. In doing so, interests determine the amount and type of knowledge and skills that people acquire. Again, the motivational functions of interests (as discussed in Proposition 2) differentiate them from cognitive abilities. Individuals need to invest their fluid intelligence in the development and acquisition of skills and knowledge (crystalized intelligence), but specific interests are the key factors that determine the areas in which people invest their fluid intelligence, how much effort they invest, and for how long. An example that demonstrates this mechanism is women’s underrepresentation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) occupations despite little observed sex differences in general mental ability (GMA) and quantitative ability (Hyde & Linn, 2006). Schmidt (2011) demonstrated that the gender gap in STEM might be attributable to women’s lower interest in technical or mechanical activities, which leads to fewer technical experiences (e.g., technical hobbies) and, in turn, less-developed technical knowledge and lower levels of technical aptitude. Because technical material is not emphasized in Grades K through 12, as are verbal or mathematical materials, lack of self-driven engagement in technical experiences outside of school means that gender gaps in technical interest and aptitude will likely persist. This evidence is consistent with our theoretical propositions 4–6.

Interests and Motivation

The term motivation can be used in two ways—in a narrow sense reflecting the state of being motivated to perform a specific behavior; or in a general sense reflecting the collection of motives that drive human decisions or choices. When it is used in the sense of being motivated to perform a specific task, we view motivation as a downstream construct and an outcome of interests. Interests determine the objects and activities into which people invest their energy and time. When a person has a strong interest in an activity, he or she will also be strongly motivated to engage in the activity. This assumption that interest influences motivation is in line with the educational psychology perspective on interest, which views interest as a source of intrinsic motivation (Renninger & Hidi, 2011; Schiefele, 1991, 2001).

When motivation is used in the general sense as a collection of motives that drive human decisions, interests are one of several motivational constructs that determine individuals’ choices (Roberts & Wood, 2006; Walsh, 1999). Motivational constructs—values, goals, and interests—have in common that they involve appraisals of external objects and these appraisals are used as a basis for evaluating and prioritizing various behaviors and choices. As these constructs are closely connected (Rounds & Armstrong, 2014) and fulfill similar functions in motivating individuals’ behaviors, a clear distinction between these constructs is sometimes difficult. Nonetheless, although all motivational constructs include an evaluative component, interests, values, and goals differ in the nature of their evaluations, their levels of granularity, and the specific ways in which they influence behaviors. We detail these differences in the following sections.

Interests and Values

Interests and values are similar in that they are both contextualized and involve external objects. In addition, interests and values both involve cognitive and affective appraisals of objects and activities, although the nature and level of these appraisals are different. The main difference between interests and values is that interests reflect evaluations of personal preference, whereas values reflect evaluations of importance (Dawis, 1991). By attaching importance to various objects in life, values describe the worth of more abstract entities (Kandler et al., 2014) and function as principles—standards or criteria—by which people behave (Dawis, 1991). Therefore, values are often considered to be broader and more general than interests (Allport & Vernon, 1931).

Another difference between interests and values is that interests are closely associated with the development of cognitive abilities, whereas values may develop independent of abilities (Sagiv, 2002). The accumulation of abilities, skills, and knowledge in a domain is key to individuals’ evaluation of activities in the domain, as individuals tend to prefer activities that they can do well. In contrast, individuals may value something as important without being able to do it.

Finally, values often develop within certain social contexts and reflect both personally and socially approved life goals (Wach & Gosling, 2004). Therefore, values explain individuals’ behaviors as well as social justification for the behaviors. Interests, in contrast, do not directly reflect social justification for behaviors. However, because interests involve cognitive appraisals of whether certain objects or activities are consistent with self-identity, social justification for behaviors can be internalized and integrated into personal preferences (see Proposition 3). For example, if an individual values social recognition or financial rewards, he/she may be drawn to tasks, contexts, or roles that have the potential to fulfill these values because they are seen as compatible with his/her self-identity. This may explain why a prestige component is often found in the factor structure of interests (e.g., Tracey & Rounds, 1996). Therefore, values—as socially approved evaluations of the importance of desirable end states—may direct individuals’ choices and, over time, manifest in individuals’ interests and preferences (Dawis, 1991). In addition, depending on what an individual values, it may strengthen or weaken the effects of interests on job attitudes and performance. For an individual who highly values work itself, interest fit (or misfit) is likely more strongly associated with job satisfaction and performance compared with someone who highly values pay and promotion and cares little about the interestingness of the job (Locke, 1976). Because personal values reflect socio-cultural norms, the importance of interests may vary by culture. Interests may be more important in cultures that value intrinsic rewards from work compared to those that more strongly value extrinsic rewards from work. More research is needed on the overlap, distinction, and mutual influence between interests and values.

Interests, Goals, and Goal-Setting

Similar to interests, goals affect behaviors and performance outcomes by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981). However, the mechanisms through which interests and goals affect behaviors are different. Interest in an activity is focused on the activity itself and the experiences associated with the activity. This means that interests direct behaviors, because people choose to engage in activities or objects for “their own sake” (Silvia, 2001a). By contrast, goals are related to specific end states that a person wants to achieve and commits to attain through action (Hennecke & Freund, 2017). Goals affect behaviors because people choose to engage in activities that will help them reach the desired end states. As such, goals combine ends with means, as they comprise cognitive representations of desired end states and cognitive representations of how to achieve them (Kruglanski et al., 2002). Therefore, goals could be viewed as more proximal to behavior and performance outcomes compared to interests—goals guide attention and action focused on possible opportunities for goal attainment (Kruglanski et al., 2002), whereas interests guide attention and action based on preferences for certain activities or environments.

The above discussion on different mechanisms through which interests and goals affect behaviors may lead to the assumption that goals have stronger associations with behavior and performance outcomes than interests. In fact, the strength of this association depends on the level of concreteness of a goal, as goals can range from very specific and concrete to very broad and abstract (see Roberts & Robins, 2000). When goals are contextualized and targeted at immediate actions for discrete events, they are closely associated with specific behaviors. When goals are conceptualized broadly (e.g., major life goals or global aspirations), they may be trans-situational and may not be as strongly tied to behaviors in specific situations (Rokeach, 1973; Wach & Gosling, 2004). The more specific and concrete a desired end state is, the clearer the behaviors or actions needed are for the achievement of this end state. For example, if a person aims to go to a concert of her favorite rock band, to reach this specific goal it is obvious that she has to buy tickets for the concert, organize the transportation to the concert venue, and maybe ask a friend to join. In contrast, if the person’s goal is more abstract (e.g., she aspires to live a life that is helpful and supportive for others), then a great variety of possible actions could lead to the fulfillment of this goal, because the aspired end state itself could be manifested in various forms. Goals influence behaviors, but the associations between goals and behaviors will be much stronger if goals are tied to specific and concrete end states.

In contrast to goals, interests are not directly linked to end states. Nevertheless, interests are important for goal setting and goal achievement (Nye et al., 2012). Interests influence goal setting, as they direct activities toward specific domains (i.e., interest-based choices). Interests influence goal achievement, as they energize goal-striving effort, motivating people to work hard on a task. In addition, interests support goal persistence, sustaining goal-striving effort until a goal is achieved (Nye et al., 2012). As interests affect the direction, vigor, and persistence of goal-oriented behaviors, it is expected that interests will predict goal attainment (Rounds & Su, 2014; Su & Nye, 2017). Interests can predict achievement on a micro scale by attaining specific goals and, on a macro scale, by attaining a long-term overarching goal that requires the completion of many short-term specific goals.

Intriguingly, there have also been findings suggesting that specific ways of goal setting could foster the development of interest. Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto, and Elliot (1997) demonstrated that setting performance goals improved college students’ grades but did not affect their interest, whereas setting learning goals enhanced interest.

Interests and Intentions (Express Interests)

At the end of this chapter, we would like to clarify a confusion that many people—even researchers—have about interests and intentions. When lay people talk about “interest” as in “I am interested in applying to this engineer job,” what they really mean is their intention or expressed interest in a specific action, not interest traits in the sense of individual differences as we have discussed in this chapter. Similarly, when young children talk about “interest” as in “I want to become a fire-fighter when I grow up” or “I want to be the President of the United States,” they are expressing career aspirations, which, again, may to some extent reflect latent interest traits but are not interest traits per se. Although expressed interests—intentions and career aspirations—are sometimes used as indicators of interests, they are conceptually distinct from interest traits (Silvia, 2001b). In the Social Cognitive Career Theory, Lent and colleagues (1994) differentiated interests from choice goals, which are conceptualized as intentions to make certain academic or career choices and subsume the constructs of expressed interests and career aspirations. Interests and intentions are causally linked. Intentions are downstream constructs of interests and are more proximal to specific behavioral (choice) outcomes (e.g., occupational entry and membership), as interests may influence the intention to pursue a given occupation and direct behaviors through the formation of concrete intentions. This distinction between interests and intentions also explains why expressed interests are often better predictors for those specific behaviors than measured interests (Silvia, 2001b).

Summary and Conclusions

Is there a unique place for interests in organizational research? An intermediate answer

In the first part of this chapter we proposed that interests are traits that are embedded in socio-cultural contexts and serve motivational functions by directing and sustaining individuals’ effort and engagement in various activities and environments. Additionally, we proposed that the experience of interest in an external environment as a collection of affective reactions and cognitive appraisals further determines individuals’ behaviors and helps shape existing mental representations of interests. Through this dynamic process of person-environment interaction—either direct or vicarious—interests develop as an integral part of an individual’s identity. In the second part of this chapter, we reviewed the similarities and differences between interests and other constructs of individual differences and demonstrated that interests are distinct from many relevant constructs, including personality traits, cognitive abilities, values, goals, and intentions.

We believe that there is a unique place for interests in work and organizational research. Occupations and organizations provide specific socio-cultural contexts, in which interests are embedded and serve various motivational functions. Interests direct individuals’ occupational choices since individuals tend to select environments that correspond to their interests. In addition, interests direct and sustain the effort and engagement a person is willing to put into work-related tasks, which, in turn, influences the person’s performance in the task and the success that is achieved—in the short term and over the course of one’s career. Currently, the primary use of interest assessment is limited to guiding career choices. However, based on our discussion, interests can be useful for understanding emotions and attitudes at work and many other work outcomes, including effort on the job, job performance, and career success. Interest assessment has potential value-added beyond cognitive ability and personality assessments for many organizational functions including personnel selection and staffing.

With the integrative framework of Trait-State Interest Dynamics, we have attempted to reconcile the trait and state perspectives on interests and highlight the process of interest development through person-environment interactions. Understanding the experience of interest in organizations, aside from individual differences in interests, may provide unique insights into how individuals manage their careers, interpret their fit with work environments, and adapt to organizational life. Specifically, future research needs to examine how the subjective experience of interest—the collection of affective reactions and cognitive appraisals—may differ from interest traits and what contextual factors influence this experience. It may also prove to be fruitful for future research to investigate the actions that individuals take to cope with incongruence between their interests and jobs and the strategies that organizations may use to better socialize and manage employees who experience interest misfit. Understanding the consequences of and adaptive processes in response to the experience of interest misfit is equally important as studying the positive outcomes and predictive power of interests and interest fit. This also requires a shift from a static view of interests to a dynamic view of interests within the context of work environments.

As an integral part of individuals’ identity, interests could be seen as the binding link between cognitive and non-cognitive traits, as well as motivational constructs like values, goals, and intentions. Instead of studying these domains of individual differences in isolation, future research should investigate how interests interact with these other constructs to form trait complexes or constellations and evolve within the organizational context and how they jointly influence individuals’ work and career outcomes.

References

1. Ackerman, P. L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, personality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22, 227–257. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(96)90016-1

2. Ackerman, P. L. (2003). Aptitude complexes and trait complexes. Educational Psychologist, 38(2), 85–93.

3. Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.

4. Ainley, M. (2007). Being and feeling interested: Transient state, mood, and disposition. In P. Schutz (Ed.), Emotion in education (pp. 141–157). New York: Academic Press.

5. Allport, G. W., & Vernon, P. E (1931). A test for personal values. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 26, 231–248.

6. Anthoney, S. F., & Armstrong, P. I. (2010). Individual and environments: Linking ability and skill ratings with interests. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 36–51.

7. Armstrong, P. I., & Anthoney, S. F. (2009). Personality facets and RIASEC interests: An integrated model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 346–359.

8. Armstrong, P. I., Day, S. X, McVay, J. P., & Rounds, J. (2008). Holland’s RIASEC model as an integrative framework for individual differences. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 1–18.

9. Armstrong, P. I., Su, R., & Rounds, J. (2011). Vocational interests: The road less traveled. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S. von Strumm, & A. Furnham, (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences (pp. 608–631). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

10. Arnold, F. (1906a). The psychology of interest (I). Psychological Review, 13(4), 221–238.

11. Arnold, F. (1906b). The psychology of interest (II). Psychological Review, 13(5), 291–315.

12. Arnold, M. B. (1960). Emotion and personality. New York: Columbia University Press.

13. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

14. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Gupta, R. (2003). Meta-Analysis of the relationship between the Five-Factor model of personality and Holland’s occupational types. Personnel Psychology, 56(1), 45–74. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00143.x

15. Betsworth, D. G., Cooper, C. R., Grotevant, H. D., Hansen, J. I. C., Scarr, S., & Weinberg, R. A. (1994). Genetic and environmental influences on vocational interests assessed using adoptive and biological families and twins reared apart and together. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44(3), 263–278.

16. Bouchard Jr, T. J. (1997). The genetics of personality. In K. Blum & E. P. Noble (Eds.), Handbook of psychiatric genetics (pp. 273–296). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

17. Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

18. Campbell, D. P. (1971). Handbook for the strong vocational interest blank. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

19. Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality development: Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 453–484. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141913

20. Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54(1), 1–22. doi:10.1037/h0046743

21. Corno, L., Cronbach, L. J., Kupermintz, H., Lohman, D. F., Mandinach, E. B., Porteus, A. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2002). Remaking the concept of aptitude: Extending the legacy of Richard E. Snow. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

22. Dawis, R. V. (1980). Measuring interests. In D. A. Payne (Ed.), New directions for testing and measurement: Recent developments in affective measurement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

23. Dawis, R. V. (1991). Vocational interests, values, and preferences. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, 2nd ed., pp. 833–871). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

24. Denissen, J. J., Zarrett, N. R., & Eccles, J. S. (2007). I like to do it, I’m able, and I know I am: Longitudinal couplings between domain-specific achievement, self-concept, and interest. Child Development, 78(2), 430–447.

25. Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. doi:10.1037/14633-000

26. Diekman, A. B., Clark, E. K., Johnston, A. M., Brown, E. R., & Steinberg, M. (2011). Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to stem careers: Evidence for a goal congruity perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 902–918.

27. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.

28. Eccles, J., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75–146). San Francisco: Freeman.

29. Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in children’s self‐and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64(3), 830–847.

30. Fiske, S. T. (1993). Social cognition and social perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 44(1), 155–194.

31. Fleeson, W. (2012). Perspectives on the Person: Rapid growth and opportunities for Integration. In K. Deaux & M. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398991.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195398991-e-003

32. Fryer, D. (1931). The measurement of interests in relation to human adjustment. Oxford, England: Holt.

33. Gottfredson, L. S. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory of occupational aspirations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28(6), 545–579. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.28.6.545

34. Gottfredson, L. S. (2005). Applying Gottfredson’s theory of circumscription and compromise in career guidance and counseling. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 71–100). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

35. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. T., & Elliot, A. J. (1997). Predictors and consequences of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1284–1295.

36. Harackiewicz, J. M., Rozek, C. S., Hulleman, C. S., & Hyde, J. S. (2012). Helping parents to motivate adolescents in mathematics and science: An experimental test of a utility value intervention. Psychological Science, 23, 899–906.

37. Harris, J. A., Vernon, P. A., Johnson, A. M., & Jang, K. L. (2006). Phenotypic and genetic relationships between vocational interests and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(8), 1531–1541.

38. Hennecke, M., & Freund, A. M. (2017). The development of goals and motivation. In J. Specht (Ed.), Personality development across the lifespan (pp. 257–274). London: Academic Press Elsevier.

39. Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549–571. doi:10.2307/1170506

40. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4

41. Hoff, K. A., Briley, D. A., Wee, C. J. M., & Rounds, J. (2018). Normative changes in interests from adolescence to adulthood: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 426–451.

42. Hogan, R., & Blake, R. (1999). John Holland’s vocational typology and personality theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55(1), 41–56.

43. Holland, J. L. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6(1), 35–45. doi:10.1037/h0040767

44. Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

45. Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 880–895.

46. Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326, 1410–1412.

47. Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2006). Gender similarities in mathematics and science. Science, 314, 599–600.

48. Izard, C. (1977). Human emotions. New York: Plenum.

49. Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Spinath, F. M. (2011). The genetic links between the big five personality traits and general interest domains. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(12), 1633–1643.

50. Kandler, C., Zimmermann, J., & McAdams, D. P. (2014). Core and surface characteristics for the description and theory of personality differences and development. European Journal of Personality, 28(3), 231–243. doi:10.1002/per.1952

51. Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23–34.

52. Kitson, H. D. (1925). Psychology of vocational adjustment. Philadelphia: Lippincott.

53. Krapp, A. (2007). An educational–psychological conceptualization of interest. International Journal of Educational and Vocational Guidance, 7, 5–21.

54. Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Fishbach, A., Friedman, R., Woo Young Chun, & Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2002). A theory of goal systems. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 331–378. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80008-9

55. Krause, J. S., & Clark, J. M. R. (2014). Stability of vocational interests after recent spinal cord injury. Rehabilitation Psychology, 59, 321–328.

56. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027

57. Locke, E. A. (1976) The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1297–1343). Chicago: Rand McNally.

58. Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969–1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 125–152. doi:10.1037/0033–2909.90.1.125

59. Low, K. S. D., Yoon, M., Roberts, B. W., & Rounds, J. (2005). The stability of vocational interests from early adolescence to middle adulthood: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 131(5), 713–737. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.5.713

60. Lubinski, D. (2000). Scientific and social significance of assessing individual differences: “Sinking shafts at a few critical points.” Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 405–444. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.405

61. Lykken, D. T., Bouchard, T. J. Jr., McGue, M., & Tellegen, A. (1993). Heritability of interests: A twin study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 649–661.

62. Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Köller, O., & Baumert, J. (2005). Academic self‐concept, interest, grades, and standardized test scores: Reciprocal effects models of causal ordering. Child Development, 76(2), 397–416.

63. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1990). Personality in adulthood. New York: Guilford Press.

64. McDougall, W. (1960). An introduction to social psychology. London: Methuen.

65. Moloney, D. P., Bouchard Jr, T. J., & Segal, N. L. (1991). A genetic and environmental analysis of the vocational interests of monozygotic and dizygotic twins reared apart. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39(1), 76–109.

66. Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Scullen, S. M., & Rounds, J. (2005). Higher-order dimensions of the big five personality traits and the big six vocational interest types. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 447–478. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00468.x

67. Nye, C. D., Su, R., Rounds, J., & Drasgow, F. (2012). Vocational interests and performance: A quantitative summary of over 60 years of research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(4), 384–403. doi:10.1177/1745691612449021

68. Nye, C. D., Su, R., Rounds, J., & Drasgow, F. (2017). Interest congruence and performance: Revisiting recent meta-analytic findings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 98, 138–151.

69. Prenzel, M. (1992). The selective persistence of interest. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 71–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

70. Reeve, J. (1996). Motivating others: Nurturing inner motivational resources. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

71. Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and generation of interest. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 168–184.

72. Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 3–25. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3

73. Roberts, B. W., Luo, J., Briley, D. A., Chow, P. I., Su, R., & Hill, P. L. (2017). A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin, 143(2),117–141. doi:10.1037/bul0000088

74. Roberts, B. W., & Robins, R. W. (2000). Broad dispositions, broad aspirations: The intersection of personality traits and major life goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(10), 1284–1296. doi:10.1177/0146167200262009

75. Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 1–25.

76. Roberts, B. W., & Wood, D. (2006). Personality development in the context of the neo-socioanalytic model of personality. In D. K. Mroczek & T. D. Little (Eds.), Handbook of personality development (pp. 11–39). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

77. Roberts, B. W., Wood, D., & Caspi, A. (2008). Personality trait development in adulthood. In Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 375–398). New York: Guilford Press.

78. Rohe, D. E., & Krause, J. S. (1998). Stability of interests after severe physical disability: An 11-year longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 45–58. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1996.1560

79. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press. Retrieved from doi.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.exportFormat&uid=2011-15663-000&recType= psycinfo&singlerecord=1&searchresultpage=true

80. Rounds, J. & Armstrong, P. I. (2014). Integrating values and interests for career counseling. In M. Pope, L. Y. Flores, & P. J. Rottinghaus (Eds.), The role of values in careers (pp. 101–113). Greensboro, NC: Information Age Publishing.

81. Rounds, J., & Su, R. (2014). The nature and power of interests. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(2), 98–103. doi:10.1177/0963721414522812

82. Sackett, P. R., Lievens, F., Van Iddekinge, C. H., & Kuncel, N. R. (2017). Individual differences and their measurement: A review of 100 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 254–273. doi:10.1037/apl0000151

83. Sagiv, L. (2002). Vocational interests and basic values. Journal of Career Assessment, 10(2), 233–257. doi:10.1177/1069072702010002007

84. Savickas, M. L. (1999). The psychology of interests. In M. L. Savickas & A. R. Spokane (Eds.), Vocational interests: Meaning, measurement, and counseling use (pp. 19–56). Palo Alto, CA: Davies–Black.

85. Savickas, M. L., & Spokane, A. R. (Eds.) (1999). Vocational interests. Palo Alto, CA: Davies–Black.

86. Schermer, J. A., & Vernon, P. A. (2008). A behavior genetic analysis of vocational interests using a modified version of the Jackson Vocational Interest Survey. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(1), 103–109.

87. Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 299–323.

88. Schiefele, U. (2001). The role of interest in motivation and learning. In J. M. Collis & S. Messick (Eds.), Intelligence and personality: Bridging the gap in theory and measurement (pp. 163–194). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

89. Schiefele, U. (2009). Situational and individual interest. In K. R. Wenzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook series. Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 197–222). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

90. Schiefele, U., Krapp, A., & Winteler, A. (1992). Interest as a predictor of academic achievement: A meta-analysis of research. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, A. Krapp, & K. A. Renninger (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 183–212). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

91. Schmidt, F. L. (2011). A theory of sex differences in technical aptitude and some supporting evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(6), 560–573. doi:10.1177/1745691611419670

92. Schmidt, F. L. (2014). A general theoretical integrative model of individual differences in interests, abilities, personality traits, and academic and occupational achievement: A commentary on four recent articles. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(2), 211–218. doi:10.1177/1745691613518074

93. Silvia, P. J. (2001a). Interest and interests: The psychology of constructive capriciousness. Review of General Psychology, 5(3), 270–290. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.3.270

94. Silvia, P. J. (2001b). Expressed and measured vocational interests: Distinctions and definitions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 382–393. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1805

95. Silvia, P. J. (2008). Interest—The curious emotion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(1), 57–60.

96. Smith, E. R., & Zárate, M. A. (1992). Exemplar-based model of social judgment. Psychological Review, 99(1), 3–21. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.3

97. Snow, R. E., Corno, L., & Jackson, D. (1996). Individual differences in affective and conative functions. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 243–310). London: Prentice Hall International.

98. Stoll, G., Rieger, S., Lüdtke, O., Nagengast, B., Trautwein, U., & Roberts, B. W. (2017). Vocational interests assessed at the end of high school predict life outcomes assessed 10 years later over and above IQ and big five personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 167–184. doi:10.1037/pspp0000117

99. Stoll, G., & Trautwein, U. (2017). Vocational interests as personality traits: Characteristics, development, and significance in educational and organizational environments. In J. Specht (Ed.), Personality development across the lifespan (pp. 401–417). London: Academic Press Elsevier.

100. Strong, E. K., Jr. (1943). The vocational interests of men and women. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

101. Su, R. (2012). The power of vocational interests and interest congruence in predicting career success (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2142/34329

102. Su, R., & Nye, C. D. (2017). Interests and person-environment fit: A new perspective on workforce readiness and success. In J. Burrus, K. D. Mattern, B. Naemi, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Building better students: Preparation for the workforce. New York: Oxford University Press.

103. Super, D. E. (1963). Self-concepts in vocational development. In D. E. Super, R. Starishevsky, N. Matlin, & J. P. Jordaan (Eds.), Career development: Self-concept theory (pp. 1–16). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

104. Tellegen, A. (1991). Personality traits: Issues of definition, evidence, and assessment. In D. Cicchetti & W. Grove (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology: Essays in honor of Paul Everett Meehl (Vol. 2, pp. 10–35). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

105. Tomkins, S. S. (1987). Script theory. In J. Aronoff, A. I. Rabin, & R. A. Zucker (Eds.), The emergence of personality (pp. 147–216). New York: Springer.

106. Tomkins, S. S. (1991). Affect, imagery, consciousness: Vol. 3. The negative affects: Anger and fear. New York: Springer.

107. Tracey, T. J. G., & Rounds, J. (1996). The spherical representation of vocational interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 3–41.

108. Turner, S. A., Jr., & Silvia, P. J. (2006). Must things be pleasant? A test of competing appraisal structures. Emotion, 6, 670–674.

109. Tyler, L. E. (1955). The development of “vocational interests”: I. The organization of likes and dislikes in ten-year-old children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 86, 33–44.

110. Van Iddekinge, C. H., Putka, D. J., & Campbell, J. P. (2011). Reconsidering vocational interests for personnel selection: The validity of an interest-based selection test in relation to job knowledge, job performance, and continuance intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 13–33. doi:10.1037/a0021193

111. Van Iddekinge, C. H., Roth, P. L., Putka, D. J., & Lanivich, S. E. (2011). Are you interested? A meta-analysis of relations between vocational interests and employee performance and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1167–1194. doi:10.1037/a0024343

112. von Stumm, S., & Ackerman, P. L. (2013). Investment and intellect: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139(4), 841–869.

113. Voss, J. F., & Schauble, L. (1992). Is interest educationally interesting? An interest-related model of learning. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 101–120). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

114. Wach, M., & Gosling, P. (2004). Values, interests and attitudes within vocational behaviour. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19(3), 223–226. doi:10.1007/BF03173220

115. Walsh, W. B. (1999). What we know and need to know: A few comments. In M. L. Savickas & A. R. Spokane (Eds.), Vocational Interests: Meaning, measurement and counseling use (pp. 371–382). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

116. Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1–74.