magazine issue 12 2006 / Issue 1

Not Again! I’m Looking for a Job but I Don’t Know Why It Is Taking So Long!

• written by Silvia Barriga

In addition, other researchers have found other individual differences in the strategies taken to search for a job. These strategies are called foraging strategies and are based on Foraging Theory which explains how individuals go about deciding if an option is or is not worth pursuing. An important concept in this theory has to do with the expected preparatory or planning effort, called search costs. This refers to the time, energy, risk, and foregone opportunities or regret the person foresees as required to achieve a goal (Kaplan & Hill, 1992; Krebs & Davies, 1997).

In Wieczorkowska and Burnstein’s (2004) studies, they examine two ideal types or styles of foraging that reflect opposite trade-offs between planning effort and goal-category range (i.e. number of options an individual considers acceptable). The first style describes people who are characteristically meticulous about means, willingly to take a lot of trouble planning and preparing, enjoy details, and people who strive to be systematic, precise and focused. These characteristics allow them to be careful about ends; they recall all but relatively small number of possibilities and concentrate on achieving one or more of them. These individuals may find the security or certainty that comes from knowing precisely what they want and how to get it.

The second style of foraging refers to individuals who are characteristically easygoing when it comes to preparation. These individuals prefer to avoid effortful planning and hence, plan in an imprecise, random or automatic manner with little attention to detail. Being insecure or uncertain about what can be achieved or the means to achievement is not aversive to them. The trade-offs they make inclines them to be undemanding regarding ends; they entertain a relatively large number, and, if necessary, are satisfied with what others might consider less desirable outcomes.

Overall, foraging is an adaptation and its expression varies over persons as well as situations. At the psychological level this means that in most domains that involve foraging-like behavior individuals tend to follow one of two default strategies. The first strategy is called a point strategy which is characterized by the tendency to form narrow goal-categories in foraging. These individuals are inclined to engage in an effortful search and, thereby, have a preference structure characterized by a narrow range of values, in the extreme case, a point on the dimensions defining domain of possible options. Whereas, the second strategy called interval strategy refers to the tendency to form broad goal-categories. These individuals are disinclined to engage in effortful search and have a preference structure characterized by a broad range of values or an interval on these dimensions (Wieczorkowska & Burnstein, 2004).

Based on foraging theory Wieczorkowska and Burnstein (2004) found that individuals who tend to form broad goal-categories, called interval strategists, gain more when options are scarce or unpredictable, whereas those tending to form narrow goal-categories gain more when options are plentiful or predictable. When job hunting, interval strategists find work faster than point strategists because their search costs are greater.

When evaluating the features of a job, point and interval strategists attribute different weights to security work (i.e. a job that is relatively secure even at the expense of pay) and systematic work (i.e. a job which performance and outcomes are multiple and variable). Point strategists are slightly more attracted to job offering secure outcomes (at the expense of pay) than interval strategists are; at the same time interval strategists are relatively averse to jobs involving systematic, regular performance while point strategists consider these sort of jobs attractive. Moreover, because interval strategists are more willing to accept a larger variety of outcomes, they are inherently more capable than point strategists of substituting among outcomes when circumstances require this (e.g. readily cease a pointless pursuit and switch to a feasible one).