Retirement Employee

172

Employee Retirement: A Review and Recommendations for Future Investigation

Mo WangUniversity of Maryland

Kenneth S. ShultzCalifornia State University, San Bernardino

Despite the obvious importance of retirement to employees, their employing organizations, and the larger society, the last comprehensive review of employee retirement in the field of organi-zational science was published more than 20 years ago. As such, the first purpose of this review is to provide a summary of key theoretical and empirical developments in employee retirement research since Beehr in 1986. A second purpose of this review is to highlight inconsistent find-ings revealed by studies that were designed to answer the same research questions. By identify-ing and scrutinizing those inconsistent findings, this study expects to provide suggestions and recommendations to further the theoretical development in the field of retirement research to address these research gaps. As a result, this proposed review would be of interest to scholars in a wide variety of areas within the organizational sciences, including human resource man-agement, organizational behavior, organizational theory, and research methods.

Keywords: retirement; retirement planning; early retirement; retirement transition and adjust-ment; bridge employment; aging

Demographic projections have shown that by 2012, nearly 20% of the total U.S. work-force will be age 55 years or older, up from just less than 13% in 2000, leading to a sizable increase in the number of people who will transition into retirement in the next decade (Toossi, 2004). This reflects the fact that the population as a whole is getting older due to several factors, including the aging of the large Baby Boom generation, lower birth rates, and

172

Corresponding author: Mo Wang, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA

E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, January 2010 172-206DOI: 10.1177/0149206309347957© 2010 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved.

at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on June 15, 2016jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jom.sagepub.com/

Wang, Shultz / Employee Retirement 173

longer life expectancies (Alley & Crimmins, 2007). These demographic and labor force change patterns are also demonstrated by data from other countries and regions (e.g., Western Europe, Japan, China, and India; Tyers & Shi, 2007), suggesting retirement is an area of global significance. Furthermore, retirement poses significant adjustment challenges for older employees (Quick & Moen, 1998). Maladjustment to retirement has been shown to lead to increased alcohol use (Perreira & Sloan, 2001) and decreased mental health (Wang, 2007).

Despite the obvious importance of retirement to employees, their families and employing organizations, and the larger society, the last comprehensive review of employee retirement in the field of management and organizational science—Beehr (1986) appeared in Personnel Psychology—was published more than 20 years ago. Although there have been other reviews that focused on aging and work issues (e.g., Hedge, Borman, & Lammlein, 2006; Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004; Shultz & Adams, 2007), none of them has thoroughly examined employee retirement and incorporated new conceptualizations and theoretical perspectives that could be applied to understanding retirement processes as well as the consequences of retirement since Beehr (1986). Guided by these new conceptualizations and theoretical per-spectives, researchers have indeed made significant advances in understanding factors that influence retirement decision making and unfolding the retirement processes to reveal both long- and short-term consequences of retirement. Nevertheless, there are also inconsistent findings and research gaps that call for a critical review and creative theoretical and method-ological solutions for further examination.

Furthermore, the context within which employees retire has changed significantly in the past 20 years. For example, employees who retire now have to work longer to receive the full Social Security benefit. In addition, most employers in the private sector have replaced defined-benefit pensions with defined-contribution plans, which put investment risks on the employees’ side. Most employers are also eliminating health care benefits for retirees. The U.S. Department of Commerce (2005) also reported that the private saving rates have been decreasing over the past two decades and reached an all-time low since the Great Depression. Changes such as these have altered the research questions investigators ask, drawing more attention to topics such as bridge employment and retirement planning (Cahill, Giandrea, & Quinn, 2006), which were not covered by Beehr’s (1986) review.

As such, the first purpose of this review is to provide a summary of key developments in employee retirement research since Beehr (1986). Specifically, both theoretical and empirical advancements since Beehr are reviewed and critically analyzed. A second pur-pose of this review is to highlight inconsistent findings and research gaps revealed by empirical studies. By identifying and scrutinizing those inconsistent findings and research gaps, we provide suggestions and recommendations to further the theoretical development in the field of retirement research in order to address these issues. As a result, we expect this review to serve the interest of scholars in a wide variety of areas within the organiza-tional sciences, including human resource management, organizational behavior, organi-zational theory, and research methods. In addition, this review may also inform research outside of the management literature, such as research in development psychology, geron-tology, sociology, and economics, as retirement is also an important topic in those fields.



174 Journal of Management / January 2010

Scope and Structure of the Review

This review is limited to research published since 1986. Following Beehr’s (1986) approach, we have limited the scope of this review to studies that focus on understanding retirement processes from an individual and behavioral perspective. We searched three major databases: PsycInfo, Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), and EBSCO. Our efforts revealed 374 published articles and books in the retirement research arena that fit into our review scope. We organized the current review by theoretical and empirical themes and each theme is illustrated with representative (rather than exhaustive) citations.

We first review contemporary theoretical conceptualizations of retirement, because theo-retical conceptualizations decide how researchers describe the concept in question and in turn ground the study in relevant knowledge bases that lay the foundation for the importance of the problem statement and research question (Rocco & Plakhotnik, 2009). By reviewing theoretical conceptualizations of retirement, we also illustrate how different theoretical frameworks are applied to understanding the retirement process. We then review empirical studies that answer different research questions about retirement. We organized this review of empirical studies around empirical themes but not theoretical conceptualizations because a large portion of studies reviewed here did not specify their theoretical conceptualizations and theoretical frameworks. Therefore, to provide comprehensive coverage of the empiri-cal findings, we decided to organize the review around the major empirical themes.

Theoretical Conceptualizations of Retirement

To cover the major theoretical advancements in retirement research, we summarize four theoretical conceptualizations of retirement (i.e., retirement as, decision making, retirement as an adjustment process, retirement as a career development stage, and retirement as a part of human resource management) that have shaped the retirement research literature in the past 20 years. Table 1 illustrates how different conceptualizations of retirement influence the choice of theoretical frameworks and provides research examples.

Retirement as Decision Making

Conceptualizing retirement as decision making emphasizes retirement as a motivated choice behavior. In other words, this conceptualization contends that when workers decide to retire, they choose to decrease their psychological commitment to work and behaviorally withdraw from work (e.g., Adams, Prescher, Beehr, & Lepisto, 2002; Feldman, 1994; Shultz & Wang, 2007). Furthermore, as Feldman (1994) pointed out, this is a decision that bears long-term consequence: The decrease of psychological commitment and withdrawal from work resulting from retirement are not likely to reverse their courses. Essentially, this con-ceptualization hypothesizes that after workers make the decision to retire, their work activi-ties should monotonically decline over time and other life activities, such as family and community related activities, would increase (e.g., Smith & Moen, 2004). Although this




hypothesis has received mixed empirical support (see our later review of the empirical find-ings regarding bridge employment), it highlights the importance of the retirement decision as a major life event and illustrates some normative motivations for people to retire (Adams & Beehr, 1998; Shultz, Morton, & Weckerle, 1998).

When conceptualizing retirement as decision making, researchers have typically relied on the informed decision-making approach to conduct their investigations. This approach assumes that older workers make their retirement decisions based on information they have regarding their own characteristics and their work and nonwork environment. They weigh these factors and evaluate the overall utility of retirement before they reach the decision about whether to retire. Theoretical mechanisms that link these factors to retirement deci-sions (i.e., explicating why these factors are important in influencing retirement decisions) include rational choice theory (Gustman & Steinmeier, 1986), image theory (Beach & Frederickson, 1989), role theory (Ashforth, 2001; Moen, Dempster-McClain, & Williams, 1992), theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), and expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964).

Specifically, rational choice theory has typically been used to tie older workers’ financial status as well as the external economic environment to their retirement decisions (Hatcher, 2003; Quinn, Burkhauser, & Myers, 1990). It argues that the retirement decision is a result of comparing the financial resource accumulated and financial resource needed in retire-ment. Rationally, workers will retire only when they feel that their accumulated financial resources, as well as the forecast of future economic conditions, would allow them to support their consumption needs in retirement.

Both image theory and role theory have been used to tie workers’ demographic status, work experience, marital life, type of industries, and productivity to their retirement deci-sion making (e.g., Adams et al., 2002; Anson, Antonovsky, Sagy, & Adler, 1989; Feldman, 1994; Mears, Kendall, Katona, Pashley, & Pajak, 2004; Talaga & Beehr, 1995). In general, all these factors influence how people perceive themselves and their roles in the larger-societal context, which creates comparison standards for workers to evaluate whether the

Table 1 Retirement Conceptualizations, Corresponding Theories, and Research Examples

Conceptualizations

Retirement as decision making

Retirement as an adjustment process

Retirement as a career development stage

Retirement as a part of human resource management

Corresponding Theories

Rational choice theoryImage theoryRole theoryTheory of planned behaviorExpectancy theory

The life course perspectiveContinuity theoryRole theory

Protean career modelRetiree career development model

General system theorySocial context theory

Research Examples

Hatcher (2003)Feldman (1994)Talaga and Beehr (1995)Cron, Jackofsky, and Slocum (1993)Kim (2003)

Wang (2007)Kim and Feldman (2000)Adams, Prescher, Beehr, & Lepisto (2002)

Freund and Baltes (1998)Shultz and Wang (2008)

Birati and Tziner (1995)Greller and Stroh (2003)




action of retirement matches their self-images or roles (Brougham & Walsh, 2007). If the match is achieved, then the decision will be made to retire. However, it should be noted that the foci of these two theories are slightly different. Image theory typically emphasizes that the retirement decision is reached by upholding a stable self-image in resolving decision conflicts (i.e., retire or not retire; Feldman, 1994), whereas role theory also underscores the retirement decision as a result of active pursuit of role change that associates with transition into retirement (Barnes-Farrell, 2003). Therefore, in comparison to image theory, theoreti-cal mechanisms advanced by role theory tend to be more future-focused than present-focused.

The theory of planned behavior has typically been used to link workers’ work attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment), retirement attitudes, and workplace norms to their retirement decision (e.g., Adams & Beehr, 1998; Cron, Jackofsky, & Slocum, 1993; Huuhtanen & Piispa, 1992; Shultz, Taylor, & Morrison, 2003; Wang, Zhan, Liu, & Shultz, 2008). The general premise of this theory highlights the importance of workers’ attitudes toward retirement and its alternative—continuing working—in influencing their retirement decisions. Furthermore, it also emphasizes the role of perceived social pressure to retire (i.e., norms) in influencing an individual’s retirement decision.

Finally, the theoretical linkage from workers’ productivity, job characteristics, and health status to their retirement decision is often built by endorsing mechanisms following expec-tancy theory (e.g., Belgrave & Haug, 1995; Cron et al., 1993; DeVaney & Kim, 2003; Karpansalo, Manninen, Kauhanen, Lakka, & Salonen, 2004; Kim, 2003). Specifically, it is argued that when retirees perceive low expectancy for reaching good productivity or being rewarded for it, they are more likely to retire instead of continuing to work.

It is interesting to note that although conceptualizing retirement as decision making sig-nificantly enriched the theoretical mechanisms in explicating predictors of the retirement decision in the past 20 years, very few studies investigating outcomes of the retirement deci-sion have endorsed the same conceptualization. In other words, very few studies that exam-ine outcomes of retirement have incorporated factors that influenced the original retirement decision. In some cases, even when these factors (e.g., preretirement financial status and job satisfaction) were included (e.g., Wang, 2007; Zhan, Wang, Liu, & Shultz, in press), the theoretical mechanisms that established the links between these factors and retirement out-comes had nothing to do with the original decision-making process of retirement. This cre-ates a logic gap because the reasons why people decide to retire would naturally influence how they evaluate outcomes associated with their retirement. Addressing this gap by explicitly incorporating the retirement decision-making process in understanding pathways that lead to different retirement outcomes could significantly extend the research.

One limitation of the decision-making conceptualization of retirement is that not all retirement decisions are voluntary (e.g., Gallo, Bradley, Siegel, & Kasl, 2000; Hanisch & Hulin, 1990; Shultz et al., 1998; Szinovacz & Davey, 2005; van Solinge & Henkens, 2007). As such, the theoretical utility of this conceptualization depends on the extent to which the retirement decision is a result of personal choice. If the personal choice com-ponent is missing, then the informed decision-making approach may not apply. Therefore, the voluntariness of the retirement decision could be viewed as a boundary condition for applying the informed decision-making approach in testing predictors of the retirement decision.




Retirement as an Adjustment Process

Compared with conceptualizing retirement as decision making, conceptualizing retire-ment as an adjustment process provides a more comprehensive approach to understanding retirement (Wang, Adams, Beehr, & Shultz, 2009). Here, adjustment process refers to the process through which retirees get used to the changed aspects of life in the transition from work to retirement and achieve psychological comfort with their retirement life (van Solinge & Henkens, 2008; Wang, 2007). Specifically, this conceptualization views retirement as incorporating both the retirement transition (i.e., from employment to retirement) and post-retirement trajectory (i.e., individual development in postretirement life). According to this view, first, it is not the decision to retire, but the characteristics of the retirement transition process embedded in this decision that are of most importance (van Solinge & Henkens, 2008). In other words, people may make the same decision to retire, yet the timing of the decision, the previous preparation for the decision, the resources associated with the deci-sion, and the amount of activity change led by the decision may be very different. Therefore, conceptualizing retirement as an adjustment process emphasizes investigating the complex functional mechanism of retirement rather than the simple decision content (Szinovacz, 2003). Second, this conceptualization recognizes retirement as a longitudinal developmental process, which provides a more realistic depiction of retirement and guides the selection and investigation of retirement outcomes (Wang, 2007).

When conceptualizing retirement as an adjustment process, it is natural for researchers to conduct their investigations relying on theoretical frameworks that are capable of describing the longitudinal adjustment process (i.e., both transition and posttransition development) and informing the antecedents and outcomes of this adjustment process. To date, three theoretical frameworks are most frequently used in association with this conceptualization. They are the life course perspective (Elder, 1995; Elder & Johnson, 2003), continuity theory (Atchley, 1989; 1999), and role theory (Ashforth, 2001; Moen et al., 1992). In particular, the life course perspective considers retirement transition in the course of the lifespan and argues that a person’s individual history and attributes as well as the contexts of the transition, influ-ence the pathways people take to accomplish the transition.

For example, the individual history factors may include how people dealt with previous transitions (Orel, Ford, & Brock, 2004; Settersten, 1998), their work and leisure habits (Morrow-Howell & Leon, 1988), and their previous workforce participation patterns and preferences (Appold, 2004). The transition-relevant individual attributes may include one’s demographic status, health and financial status, and transition related abilities and skills (e.g., Kim & Moen, 2002; Makino, 1994; Szinovacz, 2003). The general premise is that if an individual has cultivated a flexible style in dealing with previous life transitions, is less socially integrated with their work, and has the attributes that help smooth and accomplish the transition, it will be more likely for this person to prepare well for the transition, engage in the transition at more appropriate timing, and achieve better outcomes of the transition (George, 1993; Settersten, 1998; van Solinge & Henkens, 2008).

The life course perspective also argues that the experience of life transitions and the post-transition development are contingent on the specific contexts in which the retirement occurs. Such contexts include older workers’ job-associated statuses and roles (e.g.,




preretirement job attitudes, job characteristics, and career standings; Wang, 2007) as well as social context (e.g., social network and family structure). The social context is particularly important because resources embedded in social context, such as social support (e.g., Taylor, Goldberg, Shore, & Lipka, 2008), often help retirees to adjust to retirement. On the other hand, other factors manifested in social context, such as negative stereotypes toward retire-ment (e.g., Settersten & Hagestad, 1996), may hinder the adjustment to retirement. Retirees’ experience in other life spheres (e.g., marital life; Rosenkoeter & Garris, 1998; Szinovacz & Davey, 2004) is also important, providing alternative salient identities after retirement and offering opportunities for postretirement engagement (Bosse, Aldwin, Levenson, & Workman-Daniels, 1991; Calasanti, 1996; Reitzes, Mutran, & Fernandez, 1996).

Furthermore, the life course perspective provides specific hypotheses on the shape of the posttransition developmental trajectories. Life course theorists (Levinson, 1986; Levinson & Levinson, 1996; Super, 1990) suggest the normative later life stages being characterized by movement to activities and roles that involve less responsibility to others and less rigorous physical effort (e.g., leisure activities). Accordingly, the resource demands associated with retirees’ reorganizing their activities and time structures to achieve adjustment would gradu-ally decrease over time (Reitzes & Mutran, 2004; van Solinge & Henkens, 2008). Thus, the life course perspective predicts a positive developmental path in postretirement life.

In addition to the life course perspective, researchers also often use other theories to study retirement as an adjustment process, such as continuity theory and role theory. Specifically, continuity theory emphasizes that human beings’ general tendency is to maintain consistency in life patterns over time and to accommodate transitions without the experience of disrup-tion (Atchley, 1989, 1999). Therefore, continuity theorists view retirement adjustment as an opportunity for retirees to maintain and continue their social relationships and lifestyle pat-terns into their retirement. Consequently, continuity theory predicts that only severe diffi-culty in maintaining life patterns would lead to undesirable transition quality and unsuccessful adjustment to retirement. Variables that have been investigated within this theo-retical framework include health and financial status change during retirement transition (e.g., Gallo et al., 2000; Wang, 2007), bridge employment (e.g., Kim & Feldman, 2000; Zhan et al., in press), functional capacity (Chirikos & Nestel, 1989), retirement planning (Fretz, Kluge, Ossana, Jones, & Merikangas, 1989; Taylor-Carter, Cook, & Weinberg, 1997), and transferabil-ity of skills (Spiegel & Shultz, 2003).

Role theory emphasizes the importance of role exit and role transition embedded in the retirement process. According to Ashforth (2001), to the extent that one is highly invested in a particular role, feelings of self-worth tend to be associated with the ability to carry out that role in an effective manner. Therefore, being retired can be characterized as a role transition (Moen et al., 1992; Riley & Riley, 1994), which may include the processes of losing or weakening work roles, while strengthening the family and community member roles (Barnes-Farrell, 2003). Furthermore, role theory argues that the role transition could lead to either positive or negative adjustment consequences, depending on whether the role transition is desirable or matches the individual’s values and goals (e.g., Adams et al., 2002; Thoits, 1992;). Following role theory, antecedents that have been examined for retirement transition and adjustment include role stressors (e.g., Lin & Hsieh, 2001), role identities (e.g., Taylor, Shultz, Morrison, Spiegel, & Greene, 2007), and values and goals (e.g., Shultz et al., 1998).




Retirement as a Career Development Stage

The traditional linear career progression dictated primarily by the organization and focused on organizational-based rewards such as promotions and pension qualifications is becoming increasingly obsolete (Feldman, 2007). Correspondingly, the protean career model, which argues that careers are controlled by the workers themselves and focused on their own personal values and goals, has been developed to account for this trend (e.g., Hall, 2004; Hall & Mirvis, 1995). Based on this protean career model, retirement has recently been reconceptualized as a late career development stage (Shultz & Wang, 2008; Wang et al., 2009). That is, instead of viewing retirement as a career exit, it recognizes the contin-ued potential for career development in people’s retirement life (Shultz, 2003). Thus, the research question considered by this conceptualization centers on retirees’ agency efficacy (i.e., the willingness and confidence to influence their environment; Bandura, 1997) in keep-ing and pursuing their career needs (Freund & Baltes, 1998). Consequently, it is mostly adopted for retirement studies that investigate bridge employment and work behaviors in retirement life.

In a recent theoretical development, Shultz and Wang (2008) summarized three levels of factors that may impact retirees’ career development: individual, job, and organizational levels. At the individual level, the most relevant factors include physical aging, cognitive aging, and experience and expertise. Specifically, physical aging may make it more difficult for older employees to perform physically demanding tasks and add more vulnerability to occupational hazards, as physical aging is generally intertwined with decreases in muscle strength and the immune system functioning (Jex, Wang, & Zarubin, 2007). Physical aging may also influence retiree’s career goals by motivating them to seek a job with good quality health care. Age-related reductions in people’s cognitive capacities (Wang & Chen, 2006) highlights the importance for retirees to receive appropriate training in order to take advan-tage of new technologies to assist their career pursuit (Hedge et al., 2006). On the other hand, retirees who have higher levels of task-related experience and expertise are attractive to employers, as hiring them saves considerable training cost and results in better performance than new job incumbents (AARP, 2005; Hedge et al., 2006). Furthermore, experience and expertise are particularly useful for retirees to continue their careers without having to make a career path change or exit (Feldman, 2007; Kim & Feldman, 2000).

At the job level, issues such as keeping up with technology demands at work (e.g., Spiegel & Shultz, 2003), searching for desirable job characteristics (e.g., Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004), and coping with job stressors (e.g., Barnes-Farrell, 2005; Elovainio et al., 2005; Hansson, Robson, & Limas, 2001) can all influence retirees’ career pursuit. For example, older workers may have problems in keeping up with new technologies, which may result in them retiring from one career and switching to a career where constant skill updates are not required. Furthermore, older adults often prefer working alone and having greater autonomy in job-related decision making. Therefore, a job with low autonomy may be less attractive to retirees. Finally, retirees may respond to specific job stressors differently compared with younger workers (Barnes-Farrell, 2005; Shultz, Wang, Crimmins, & Fisher, in press). For example, to retirees, job security is often a minor concern when they choose to continually work part time (Morrow-Howell & Leon, 1988).




At the organizational level, factors such as perceived organizational climate related to age bias and discrimination (e.g., Finkelstein & Farrell, 2007; Posthuma & Campion, 2009), organizational downsizings (e.g., Gallo et al., 2000), and declines in demand for certain types of labor (e.g., AARP, 2005) are also likely to influence retirees’ career pursuit. For example, whether the organization treats older workers with respect and dignity would largely influence the retirees’ motivation to continue their career pursuit. Organizational downsizing and declines in demand of traditional jobs may also discourage retirees’ career-related pursuit. Nevertheless, retirees who can function across different job roles, organiza-tional hierarchies, and national boundaries may thrive in this business environment (Tyers & Shi, 2007).

Retirement as a Part of Human Resource Management

Finally, conceptualizing retirement as a part of human resource management emphasizes the values of managing retirement in helping organizations to reach their goals. This con-ceptualization not only promotes the examination of organizational practice in influencing individual employee’s retirement decisions and retirement planning but also facilitates the examination of organizational-level changes caused by systematic retirement practice, such as providing early retirement incentives and offering flexible and reduced work schedules (e.g., Kim & Feldman, 1998).

A traditional theoretical approach corresponding to this conceptualization roots on the general system theory that likens organizations to biological organisms (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Within this theoretical framework, human resource management can be viewed as a subsystem that exchanges information and energy with the environment to attract, develop, motivate, and retain employees who ensure the effective functioning and survival of the organization (Jackson & Schuler, 1995). Serving these purposes, retirement-related human resource policies and benefits, such as generous pension payment (e.g., Shuey, 2004), low standard for pension eligibility (e.g., Lund & Villadsen, 2005), postretirement medical care benefit (e.g., Fronstin, 1999), and life-long employment system (e.g., Hayes & VandenHeuvel, 1994), have been used as tools to strengthen employees’ job satisfaction and promote their commitment to the organization. Furthermore, human resource management also has to serve the organization’s strategic goal in terms of maintaining a good personnel structure, achieving optimal skill and knowledge combinations, and keeping labor costs acceptable. On this front, retirement-related human resource policies and practices, such as early retirement incentives (e.g., Birati & Tziner, 1995; Feldman, 2003), phased retirement (e.g., Greller & Stroh, 2003; Penner, Perun, & Steuerle, 2002), and job sharing (e.g., Rix, 1990), have been used to downsize and restructure the organization’s human resource.

Reviewing studies that conceptualized retirement as a part of human resource manage-ment, it is interesting to note that the trend of their research questions generally follows the prediction of social context theory, which argues that the human resource management poli-cies and practices are influenced by the relevant social, economical, political, and cultural contexts (Ferris et al., 1998). Specifically, most studies examining early retirement were con-ducted in the 1990s when many organizations were seeking to improve their competitiveness




through global manufacturing relocation or outsourcing peripheral services (Pennings & Sleuwaegen, 2000). In contrast, most research focusing on bridge employment as an employment option for organizations emerged after the new millennium, when Baby Boomers’ retirement started to lead to labor force shortages (e.g., AARP, 2005). Given the current economic recession, we will probably see a combination of both types of human resource management practices in retirement. On one hand, organizations may rely more on promoting early retirement as a socially acceptable approach in cutting labor costs. On the other hand, more retirees may be hired as contingent workers because organizations will need to maintain flexible access to a skilled and experienced workforce (Greller & Stroh, 2003). Overall, the social context approach points to the importance of paying attention to the macrolevel factors that may influence retirement process.

Empirical Findings

We next review studies that answer different research questions about retirement. These studies are organized around the major empirical themes of retirement planning, retirement decision making, early retirement, retirement transition and adjustment, and bridge employ-ment. Within each empirical theme, we discuss the antecedents and consequences associated with the empirical phenomenon as well as analyze how the studies tie to the aforementioned four theoretical conceptualizations. At the end of reviewing each empirical theme, we also summarize the research gaps and provide recommendations for future investigations. Figure 1 presents a model that summarizes the diverse issues considered by the empirical studies reviewed below. The left side of the model has the various factors that impact the retirement process. The right side of the model depicts how the retirement process unfolds over time, and how the components of retirement process influence each other.

Retirement Planning

Research on retirement planning over the last two decades has primarily focused on how planning for retirement influences retirement timing, postretirement satisfaction, and adjust-ment. As a result, the theoretical conceptualizations most employed are retirement as deci-sion making and retirement as adjustment. For example, retirement planning predicts higher levels of postretirement adjustment across a variety of occupational settings, such as the public sector (Taylor & Doverspike, 2003), private sector (Mutran, Reitzes, & Fernandez, 1996), and military settings (Spiegel & Shultz, 2003). In addition, those who have prepared for retirement and feel ready to make the transition are more likely to exit the workforce at an earlier age (Reitzes, Mutran, & Fernandez, 1998; Taylor & Shore, 1995).

Taylor-Carter et al. (1997) found that preparation for retirement both formally and infor-mally increased subject’s confidence in their abilities in making the retirement transition (for similar findings, see Elder & Rudolph, 1999, and Anderson & Weber, 1993). Specifically, formal retirement planning works because it contributes to improving people’s actual finan-cial and activity planning for retirement through formal planning seminars, whereas informal planning works as it sets up the psychological expectations about retirement.




Spiegel and Shultz (2003) examined whether preparing for retirement and having trans-ferable knowledge, skills, and abilities would affect retirement adjustment for retired naval officers. Their findings indicated that retirement planning benefited those individuals with higher retirement satisfaction and better adjustment to civilian life. It should be noted that the vast majority of these military retirees were transitioning into another job within their life course, which would be in line with the continuity theory and life course perspective dis-cussed earlier and the concept of retirement as a career development stage.

Retirement planning may also facilitate goal setting on the part of older workers planning for retirement. Hershey, Jacobs-Lawson, and Neukam (2002) noted that having clear goals for retirement is a critical determinant of life satisfaction and adjustment during the postemploy-ment transition period. In a recent empirical study, Stawski, Hershey, and Jacobs-Lawson (2007) found that retirement goal clarity significantly predicted retirement planning practices, which in turn predicted saving tendencies. In addition, Kim, Kwon, and Anderson (2005) found that retirement preparation and planning as well as workplace financial planning, were strong predictors of feelings of retirement confidence. Hence, setting and clarifying

Retirement Process

Retirement Transition and Adjustment

Postretirement Leisure ActivitiesRetirement Satisfaction

Life SatisfactionPostretirement Physical and Mental Health

Retirement Adjustment Trajectories

Retirement PlanningFormal vs. Informal Planning

Financial PlanningRetirement Goal Setting

Socio-Economic FactorsSocial Norms about RetirementCurrent Economic ConditionsFuture Economic TrendsSocial Security SystemGovernment Policies and Programs

Retirement Decision Making

Voluntary RetirementInvoluntary RetirementRetirement Intention

Early RetirementDecision to Take ERI

Decision to Retire Early

Bridge EmploymentCareer Bridge Employment

Bridge Employment in a Different FieldVolunteer WorkFull Retirement

Job and Organizational Factors

Employment HistoryJob CharacteristicsJob AttitudesCareer AttachmentAge Stereotypes at WorkFlexible Job OptionsFinancial Incentives

Family FactorsFamily SupportMarital and Dependent Care StatusMarital Quality Spouse’s Working Status

Individual AttributesDemographic CharacteristicsNeeds and ValuesPersonalityKnowledge, Skills, and AbilitiesAttitudes Toward RetirementHealth and Financial Circumstances

Figure 1Summary of Issues and Relationships Considered in Empirical Studies on the

Retirement Process




retirement related goals are important components of the retirement planning process. This would be in line with conceptualizing retirement as decision making, which typically takes a more purposeful and motivated choice behavior perspective.

A recent line of research by Hershey and his colleagues (e.g., Hershey, 2007; Hershey, Henkens, & Van Dalen, 2007; Hershey, Jacobs-Lawson, McArdle, & Hamagami, 2007; Hershey et al., 2002; Hershey, Mowen, & Jacobs-Lawson, 2003) has focused on the psychological foundations for financial planning for retirement. This research has explored the factors associated with designing effective financial planning seminars. For example, Hershey et al. (2007) found that Dutch workers were less involved in retire-ment planning activities and had lower goal clarity scores than U.S. workers. This is not surprising given that the vast majority of older Dutch workers are covered by guaranteed defined benefit pension plans, whereas most U.S. organizations now offer much more volatile and uncertain defined contributions plans. However, their research does high-light the need to look at potential cross-cultural differences with regard to the anteced-ents and outcomes of retirement planning.

There is another line of research that looks at the antecedents to retirement planning. For example, Kim and Moen (2001) reported that unfavorable attitudes toward retirement were associated with absence of retirement planning and failure to seek information about retire-ment, which in turn were related to unsuccessful adaptation to retirement. Ekerdt, Kosloski, and DeViney (2000) found that the closer the perceived proximity of retirement, the more motivated workers were to engage in both formal and informal retirement planning activi-ties. Taylor and Geldhauser (2007) note that older workers from lower income brackets, which also have higher proportions of women and minorities, are less likely to engage in both informal and formal retirement planning.

Several studies have also looked at demographic differences in predicting engagement in retirement planning related behaviors. For example, Glass and Kilpatrick (1998) note that men are more likely to not only save more for retirement, but also invest in more aggressive financial mechanisms. Hershey et al. (2002) found that men were more likely to have specific concrete retirement goals (e.g., buy a motor home and travel to Alaska), whereas women reported more general and abstract goals (e.g., be happy). A recent study by Phua and McNally (2008) showed that younger men were much less likely to be saving for retirement and they also made a much stronger distinction between preretirement planning and financial planning for retirement, whereas older men saw these two forms of planning as more closely aligned. Although much has been discussed on women’s inherent disadvantages when it comes to retirement planning (e.g., more disrupted careers, lower and secondary incomes, more part time work), little empirical research exists that confirms this theorizing.

After reviewing the literature on retirement planning, several gaps are evident. First, the long-term influence of retirement planning on postretirement outcomes (e.g., adjustment, satisfaction) are relatively unknown. Taylor and Doverspike (2003), for example, suggest that retirement planning may have its strongest impact on these outcomes early in the retire-ment process. However, there are few longitudinal empirical studies to support this (for an exception, see Spiegel & Shultz, 2003). Given retirements are lasting much longer than they did just a generation ago, more longitudinal research is needed to determine both the short- and long-term impact of retirement planning on important postretirement outcomes.




Second, research studies on how retirement planning influences outcomes other than retirement timing, satisfaction, adjustment, and savings behaviors are badly needed (Hayslip, Beyerlein, & Nicolas, 1997). As noted earlier, retirement no longer means just the cessation of work (Beehr & Bennett, 2007). Instead, the concept of retirement has broadened to include numerous options beyond leisure activities, including paid and unpaid bridge employment, pursuit of avocations and entrepreneurial activities, second careers, and contin-ued education. To date, however, there is little research that explicitly addresses how retire-ment planning may influence these other outcomes of the retirement transition process. Therefore, future research on retirement planning that examines a wider variety of postretire-ment outcomes would better account for the changing nature of retirement.

A third major area in need of research is the development of more comprehensive models of the relationship between retirement planning and various postretirement outcomes. For example, Taylor and Doverspike (2003) suggest that goal setting and having realistic expec-tations for retirement may be important mediators of the relationship between retirement planning and the postretirement outcomes of satisfaction and adjustment. However, no empirical studies have been carried out to examine their supposition. Thus, more compre-hensive models of the interplay between retirement planning, various potentially mediating and/or moderating variables, and a variety of postretirement outcomes is needed to better understand how best to structure retirement planning.

Finally, issues around the timing of the retirement planning process (i.e., when to begin) need to be examined in more detail. Traditionally, most older workers do not seriously start planning for retirement until very close to the actual retirement decision. However, Ekerdt (2004) has noted that retirement is no longer a concern only for the second half of life, espe-cially given the precipitous shift of the risk of funding retirement from the employer to the individual employee. Thus, retirement planning needs to not only start sooner in one’s life, but also the focus of retirement planning may need to be substantially different during vari-ous life phases (Phua & McNally, 2008). This is becoming increasingly important as both the nature of and financial security associated with retirement continues to change rapidly.

Retirement Decision Making

Not surprisingly, the major theoretical framework used in most research in the area of retirement decision making has been retirement as decision making. In particular, rational choice theory, which focuses on the choice between work and leisure (e.g., Becker, 1965), has guided much of the research in the area of retirement decision making. However, other models and frameworks (e.g., role theory, continuity theory, and life course perspective) are often employed in the psychology, sociology, and gerontology literature when examining the decision to retire. Therefore, these additional frameworks will also be integrated into our review and interpretations of the literature on retirement decision making.

Beehr (1986) described the retirement decision-making process as a complex psycho-logical progression that occurs over a period of time. That is, retirement is not a single, onetime event, but rather a psychological process that unfolds over a period of time that will vary depending on the circumstances of each individual. More recently, Wang et al (2009)




classified the predictors of the decision to retire as falling into two broad categories: (a) microlevel personal factors and (b) mesolevel work-related factors, which occur in a larger macrolevel social, economic, and political context. However, we will also discuss a third macrolevel category of factors that influence retirement on it own (e.g., societal norms) which are often the focus of the sociological literature on retirement decision making.

Some of the most salient personal predictors of the decision to retire are at the individual level. For example, the older the individual is, the more likely that the individual will retire (e.g., Adams & Rau, 2004; Kim & Feldman, 2000; Wang et al., 2008). This supports the life course perspective’s emphasis that older workers are facing the decline of both physical energy and cognitive abilities (Jex et al., 2007) and their engagements in further employment become increasingly limited (Adams & Rau, 2004). Education has also been demonstrated to be related to retirement decisions (e.g., von Bonsdorff, Shultz, Leskinen, & Tansky, 2009). Supporting continuity theory, highly educated individuals have more capacity and options in maintaining their life patterns because of their professional knowledge and/or skills. Thus, they may have more opportunities to continue to work in their career field by engaging in consulting or other entrepreneurial roles (Ekerdt, Kosloski, & DeViney, 2000).

Health is another major factor that influences retirement decisions (Jex et al., 2007; Mutchler, Burr, Pienta, & Massagli, 1997; Shultz & Wang, 2007). Health problems might lead to constraints on an individual’s ability to perform effectively or achieve continuity of life structure through further participation in the workforce. Consequently, employees who are healthy are likely to continue to stay employed whereas those employees with health problems will be more likely to retire (Barnes-Farrell, 2003). Financial status consistently predicts retirement decisions as well (Gruber & Wise, 1999; Quinn et al., 1990). However, the relationship is rather complicated. For example, Wang et al. (2008) found that retirees’ total wealth was not able to predict the odds for retirees to engage in career bridge employ-ment against full retirement. This suggests that financial motivation may not be a primary driving force for people to keep working. In other words, retirees may continue working because they are satisfied with and attached to their career jobs (e.g., Shultz, 2003), and committed to their organizations (e.g., Adams & Beehr, 1998), but not because they are in relatively bad financial shape.

The mesolevel work-related predictors of retirement decisions include characteristics of the work role and a person’s thoughts and attitudes about work. For example, workers in jobs with higher substantive complexity were less likely to retire, whereas workers in jobs with greater physical and psychological demands (Elovainio et al., 2005; Gobeski & Beehr, 2008; Hayward, Grady, Hardy, & Sommers, 1989; Lin & Hsieh, 2001; Wang 2007) or those dis-satisfied with their job (Shultz et al., 1998; Wang et al., 2008) are more likely to choose retirement. Other studies found, however, that job satisfaction was not related to retirement (e.g., Beehr, Glazer, Nielson, & Farmer, 2000; Gobeski & Beehr, 2008; Schmitt & McCune, 1981), but related to taking a bridge job in a noncareer field (Gobeski & Beehr, 2008).

Several studies have reported that those who report simply “being tired of work” are likely to decide to retire (Beehr et al., 2000; Bidwell, Griffin, & Hesketh, 2006). In contrast, researchers (e.g., Adams, 1999; Adams & Beehr, 1998; Adams, et al., 2002; Luchak, Pohler, & Gellatly, 2008) have shown that attachment or commitment to one’s career is negatively related to the decision to retire. A recent study by Schmidt and Lee (2008) demonstrated that




work centrality and commitment to leisure activities were unique predictors of retirement intentions, whereas affective organizational commitment only predicted turnover intentions. These results support both role theory and continuity theory.

According to the life course perspective, family is an important life domain that may influ-ence retirement and employment status (Szinovacz, 2003). Specifically, spouse’s working status, spousal support, and marital and dependent care status have been shown to be related to retirement decisions (Henkens, 1999; Henkens & Tazelaar, 1997; Henkens & van Solinge, 2002; Szinovacz, DeViney, & Davey, 2001). Nevertheless, there are studies (e.g., Wang et al., 2008) that have shown other family-related variables, such as marital status and quality, were not related to retirement decisions. Because there have been relatively fewer studies investi-gating this type of antecedent, it is still too early to draw conclusions.

Finally, macrolevel environmental factors have also been examined in the retirement decision-making literature. These factors can include organizational level policies and occu-pational norms with regard to retirement as well as perceived biases and negative stereotypes with regard to older workers in the workplace or society more broadly. For example, Settersten and Hagestad (1996) reported that workplace and societal norms regarding appro-priate retirement ages produce pressures on older workers with regard to their retirement preferences and plans. Specifically, those individuals who are behind schedule with regard to their career advancement or have plateaued in their career or job, are more likely to feel pressure from the organization and society to retire.

After reviewing the literature on retirement decision making, several gaps in the literature are evident. First, the decision to retire has dramatically evolved and now includes not only when to retire, but also what to do in retirement. There has been some recent theorizing on this issue (e.g., Wang et al., 2009); however, most empirical research is narrowly focused on the antecedents or decision process around just a single outcome, such as full retirement or bridge employment. As a result, future research will need to examine a wider swath of options at the same time in order to better understand the key choice factors in deciding among the various retirement options.

Second, the theoretical mechanisms that have been applied to studying retirement deci-sions all emphasized retirement decision as a rational process. In other words, they assumed that retirees had comprehensive and accurate information about themselves and the situations when making the decision. However, in reality, retirement decisions are often made in the face of incomplete and imperfect information, which renders a sense of uncertainty in the decision-making process (e.g., Ekerdt, Hackney, Kosloski, & DeViney, 2001). So far, no theoretical framework has incorporated this notion of uncertainty, which could have impor-tant implications for understanding the psychological aspect of retirement decision.

A third gap in the literature on retirement decision making is with regard to the multilevel nature of retirement decision making. Beehr and Bennett (2007) discuss multiple levels (e.g., individual, job, organization, and society) of predictors in the retirement decision. However, most empirical research focuses on only a single level of analysis at one time (see Hardy & Hazelrigg, 1999, as a rare exception). Therefore, more studies are needed to examine how factors from different levels interact in influencing retirement decision making. Specifically, in our later discussion of “new theoretical directions in retirement research,” we suggest incorporating a person–environment fit perspective may help achieving this goal.




Early Retirement

Research on early retirement has typically taken one of several avenues. The first has focused on the predictors of who will accept Early Retirement Incentives (ERIs). The second has been primarily group comparisons of those older workers who retire early versus those who either stayed at work or those who ultimately retired “on time,” whereas the third line of research has focused more on the outcomes associated with early retirement. As a result, much of the ERI research has taken either a retirement as decision-making approach (i.e., how do older workers weigh the perceived advantages and disadvantages with regard to ERIs and come to a decision; Feldman, 1994) or a human resource management approach (i.e., how can the organization control who and how many eligible older workers accept ERIs at a reasonable cost to the organization). In contrast, the second type of early retirement research has used a wider variety of theoretical frameworks (e.g., continuity theory and role theory). Similarly, the third line of research that focuses on the outcomes of early retirement has also used a continuity framework for examining the early retirement process.

According to Feldman (2003), although organizations have near complete control over the financial incentives offered, they have much less control over the valence such incentives will have for eligible workers. In addition, the projections made regarding the impact of ERI specifics on acceptance rates can be wildly inaccurate if nonfinancial considerations are not taken into account. Kim and Feldman (1998), for example, examined the acceptance rates of early retirement incentive packages over three points in time for university faculty members. Their results showed that poorer health, lower salary, and higher pension benefits led to early retirement decisions. In addition, faculty members who planned on working part time after retirement and who expected there would be no future incentive programs were more likely to accept early retirement offers, whereas those with higher productivity and with spouses still in the workforce were less likely to do so. Thus, it is clear that it is a combination of organizational factors and individual characteristics that persuade early retirement decisions.

Doerpinghaus and Feldman (2001) tried to predict early retirement decisions in defined benefit pension plans. They found that unlike defined contribution plans, workers who earned more were more likely to retire early. In addition, gender, age, martial and family status, and income all interact in unique ways for those covered under defined benefit pen-sions versus those under defined contribution plans. Also, the major leverage point for orga-nizations with defined benefit pension plans is to lower the eligibility age for full retirement, whereas in organizations with defined contribution plans lump sum bonuses or direct contri-butions to the employees’ retirement plans have the largest influence. Thus, whether the employee is covered under a defined contribution or defined benefit pension plan can make a dramatic difference on the value of any specific incentive used in an ERI and how the various influences come together to inform the ERI decision (Feldman, 2003).

Although much of the research on early retirement has looked retrospectively at who accepts ERIs and for what reasons, there is another line of research that looks at early retire-ment intentions, an important precursor to the act of retirement. For example, both Lin and Hsieh (2001) and Elovainio et al. (2005) reported that those who perceived their jobs as being stressful and having higher workloads intended to retire early. Although intentions do not always lead to the desired behaviors, they do serve as one of the strongest predictors of




the actual behavior (Prothero & Beach, 1984). Thus, research that examines the precursors to older workers preferences for early or on-time retirement is important to examine.

The majority of research on early retirement has been conducted with workers in white-collar professional occupations. However, recent research from blue-collar workers in Poland (Szubert & Sobala, 2005) indicated that work conditions (e.g., heavy lifting at work), health conditions, alcohol abuse, and absence of leisure time were related to increased risks for leaving the workforce before the nationally mandated age of retirement (e.g., early retire-ment). Thus, it appears that the mechanisms behind early retirement for different classes of occupations may be somewhat different. That is, whereas professional workers may focus on factors such as autonomy and psychological stress, blue-collar workers may be more likely to focus on the physical demands of the job and the potentially collective negative physical and psychological health effects that may have accumulated over the course of their careers.

There is also some research examining the potentially unique outcomes associated with early retirement. Although not all “on-time” retirement decisions are likely to be voluntary, it is clear that early retirement decisions are much more likely to be perceived as involuntary and negative by older workers (Shultz et al., 1998). Gowan (1998), for example, noted that older workers who did not desire to retire, had lower self-esteem, fewer financial resources, and plans to continue working, were much more likely to view an offer of an early retirement package as harmful. In another study, Mein and Ellison (2006) found that older workers viewed early retirement incentive offers as representing the downsizing effort of their orga-nization, which led them to have negative perceptions about their work environment.

On reviewing the literature on early retirement, several gaps become evident. First, as early retirement may often be initiated by the organization via an early retirement incentive package, the need for non-self-report data on the details of the package offered are needed. Much of the past research on ERIs has focused on the self-report perceptions of the older worker with regard to the ERI being offered, rather than an explicit comparison of the actual offer details to the employees’ perceptions. Although perceptions are clearly important in how the older employee interprets the ERI offer, the accuracy of those perceptions may well be important in how the retiree ultimately adjusts to the decision of whether to retire early or not.

Second, older workers’ perceptions of the fairness of an ERI have rarely been explored. Barnes-Farrell (2003) suggests that using an organizational justice framework might be par-ticularly helpful when examining early retirement decision making. That is, how do the older workers view the informational and interpersonal justice of an ERI in terms of how fair they perceive they were treated during and subsequent to the ERI process? The changing nature of the psychological contract at work may also relate to retirees’ perception of fairness, because the traditional paternalist stance of the organization is being replaced with one that requires the workers themselves to bare the burden of forging their career and accepting the risk of funding their retirement via defined contribution pension systems (Sullivan, 1999).

Finally, early retirement has broader implications for organizations and society as it rep-resents an “off time” event (i.e., the timing of the event is inconsistent with the societal norms) that are often unexpected. As a result, from the human resource management per-spective, organizations and society, more broadly, must account for the influence that early retirements have on other members of the organization or society. Although policy makers




have proposed initiatives to increase the average retirement age (e.g., elimination of manda-tory retirement at a given age, increase in the age to receive full social security benefits), it is unclear how much influence these factors have. Thus, more cross-national research is needed to determine the influence such policy initiative has on the culture with regard to perceptions of the transition to retirement as well as actual retirement patterns. Furthermore, questions such as why these policies have been successful and what would constitute an efficient policy design remain unanswered (Henkens & Van Dalen, 2003).

Retirement Transition and Adjustment

The past 20 years of empirical studies regarding retirement transition and adjustment have mainly focused on seeking answers for the following two research questions: (a) What is the general pattern of retirement transition and adjustment? and (b) What predicts the outcome of retirement transition and adjustment? Naturally, most of these investigations conceptual-ized retirement as an adjustment process and relied on theoretical frameworks that are capable of explicating the adjustment process (e.g., the life course perspective, continuity theory, and role theory as reviewed earlier).

Empirical research aiming at answering the first question has yielded inconsistent findings. Some researchers have found that during retirement transition and adjustment, retirees tend to report poorer physical health, greater depression and loneliness, lower life satisfaction and happiness, a less positive view about retirement, and lower activity levels (e.g., Atchley & Robinson, 1982; Kim & Moen, 2002; Richardson & Kilty, 1991; Ross & Drentea, 1998). Others have found retirement transition and adjustment to have a positive impact on life sat-isfaction, health, and stress levels (e.g., Calasanti, 1996; Ekerdt, Bosse, & LoCastro, 1983; Isaksson & Johansson, 2000; Midanik, Soghikian, Ransom, & Tekawa, 1995). Finally, retire-ment transition and adjustment had also been shown as having no impact on retirees (e.g., Dorfman, 1989; Gall, Evans, & Howard, 1997; Reis & Pushkar-Gold, 1993; Stull, 1988; Warr, Butcher, Robertson, & Callinan, 2004; Wu, Tang, & Yan, 2005).

To reconcile these inconsistent findings, Wang (2007) hypothesized multiple forms of retirement transition and adjustment coexisting in the retiree population. Using nationally representative U.S. samples and growth mixture modeling technique (Wang & Bodner, 2007), he was able to demonstrate that approximately 70% of retirees experienced minimum psychological well-being changes; about 25% of retirees experienced negative changes in psychological well-being during the initial transition stage, but showed improvements after-ward; and about 5% of retirees experienced positive changes in psychological well-being. Wang’s (2007) findings were further corroborated by Pinquart and Schindler (2007) using a nationally representative sample of German retirees. Both studies support the multiple-pathway nature of retirement transition and adjustment.

Regarding the predictors of retirement transition and adjustment outcomes (e.g., well-being, retirement satisfaction, and life satisfaction), among individual attributes, supporting the life course perspective, retirees’ physical health (e.g., Dorfman, 1992; Gall et al., 1997; Hardy & Quadagno, 1995; Hyde, Ferrie, Higgs, Mein, & Nazroo, 2004; Kim & Feldman, 2000; Pinquart & Schindler, 2007; Quick & Moen, 1998; van Solinge & Henkens, 2008), mental health (e.g., Hyde et al., 2004; Kim & Moen, 2002; Wang, 2007), and finance status




(e.g., Choi, 2001; Dorfman, 1992; Gall et al., 1997; Hardy & Quadagno, 1995; Pinquart & Schindler, 2007; Quick & Moen; 1998; Reitzes & Mutran, 2004) have been repeatedly found to be positively related to the quality of retirement transition and adjustment. Furthermore, health declines during the retirement transition were negatively related to the quality of retirement, supporting continuity theory (e.g., Kim & Moen, 2002; van Solinge & Henkens, 2008; Wang, 2007). The findings regarding retirees’ financial declines have been mixed. The negative impact of financial decline was found for a recent Dutch sample (van Solinge & Henkens, 2008), but not American samples who retired in the 1990s (Kim & Moen, 2002; Wang, 2007). American retirees who entered retirement in 1990s have been recognized to accumulate enough financial resources to support their retirement (Engen, Gale, & Uccello, 1999; Gustman & Steinmeier, 1998), which may not be the case for the Dutch.

Among preretirement job-related variables, supporting role theory, retirees’ work role iden-tity (e.g., Matthews & Brown, 1987; Quick & Moen, 1998; Reitzes & Mutran, 2004) is nega-tively related to retirement transition and adjustment outcomes, whereas work stress (e.g., Wang, 2007), psychological and physical job demands (e.g., Quick & Moen, 1998; Wang, 2007), job challenges (e.g., van Solinge & Henkens, 2008), job dissatisfaction (e.g., Wang, 2007), and unemployment before retirement (e.g., Marshall, Clarke, & Ballantyne, 2001; Pinquart & Schindler, 2007) is positively related to retirement transition and adjustment outcomes.

Among family-related variables, supporting the life course perspective, married retirees usually adjust better than single or widowed retirees (e.g., Pinquart & Schindler, 2007), but this beneficial effect disappears when their spouses are still working (e.g., Moen, Kim, & Hofmeister, 2001; Wang, 2007). Retirees with happier marriages (e.g., Rosenkoeter & Garris, 1998; Szinovacz & Davey, 2004; Wang, 2007) and fewer numbers of dependent children (e.g., Kim & Feldman, 2000; Marshall et al., 2001) are more likely to achieve better retirement adjustment outcomes. Finally, van Solinge and Henkens (2008) showed that losing a partner during the retirement transition had negative impact on retirement satisfaction.

Among retirement transition-related variables, supporting continuity theory, the volun-tariness of the retirement (e.g., Gall et al., 1997; Reitzes & Mutran, 2004; Shultz et al., 1998; van Solinge & Henkens, 2007, 2008) and retirement planning (e.g., Elder & Rudolph, 1999; Reitzes & Mutran, 2004; Rosenkoeter & Garris, 2001; Wang, 2007) are positively related to retirees’ retirement satisfaction, life satisfaction, and well-being. Retiring earlier than expected is negatively related to retirement transition and adjustment outcomes (e.g., Quick & Moen, 1998; Wang, 2007). Quick and Moen (1998) also showed that different retirement motivations led to different levels of retirement satisfaction. Specifically, retiring for health care reasons negatively related to retirement satisfaction, whereas retiring to do other things and to receive financial incentives positively related to retirement satisfaction.

Among postretirement activities, bridge employment (e.g., Kim & Feldman, 2000; Wang, 2007; Zhan et al., in press), volunteer work (e.g., Dorfman & Douglas, 2005; Kim & Feldman, 2000; Smith & Moen, 2004), and leisure activities (e.g., Dorfman & Douglas, 2005; Dorfman & Heckert, 1988; Kim & Feldman, 2000; Reeves & Darville, 1994) are positively related to retirement transition and adjustment outcomes. Furthermore, retirees’ anxiety associated with maintaining their social status and social contacts via social activities was negatively related to retirement satisfaction (e.g., van Solinge & Henkens, 2007, 2008).

Several gaps are readily noted in reviewing the empirical findings in the research of retire-ment transition and adjustment. First, despite the fact that personality variables have shown




good prediction on transition and adjustment quality in other types of life transition and adjustment, such as relocation transition (e.g., Kling, Ryff, Love, & Essex, 2003), cross- cultural adjustment (e.g., Wang & Takeuchi, 2007), and transition to parenthood (e.g., Levy-Shiff, 1994), very few empirical studies have linked them as individual attributes to retirement transition and adjustment. Given that personality variables have important impact on individuals’ coping style and social behaviors, more research should focus on explicating how these variables may influence retirement transition and adjustment.

Second, although it may be fruitful to systematically examine different retirement motiva-tions on the retirement transition and adjustment outcomes (Quick & Moen, 1998), few studies have done so. As a result, despite that motivation research has made significant prog-ress in both empirical and theoretical fronts in the past 20 years (for reviews, see Latham & Pinder, 2005; Mitchell & Daniels, 2003), this progress has not been applied to advance our understanding about retirement transition and adjustment. Motivational theories, such as self-regulation, resource perspective, and the model of selective optimization with compen-sation, may be able to link the examinations of retirement motivations to postretirement activities and inform the processes that underlie retirement adjustment.

Third, few studies have examined socioeconomic context–related variables on retirement transition and adjustment outcomes. These variables may include labor market needs, mac-roeconomic trends, government policies related to retirement, and public opinions (see Figure 1 for other examples). To the extent that these variables may influence retirees’ post-retirement life style (as predicted by continuity theory) or the specific nature of the transition (as predicted by the life course perspective), these variables could have important impact on retirees’ transition and adjustment outcomes.

Finally, the empirical research on retirement transition and adjustment have mostly focused on detecting predictive effects instead of exploring boundary conditions of these predictive effects. In fact, few studies have examined moderators other than gender. For example, Quick and Moen (1998) showed that preretirement work hours was positively related to retirement satisfaction, whereas van Solinge and Henkens (2007, 2008) showed that work hours was negatively related to retirement adjustment outcomes. Given that both findings had solid theoretical foundations, it may be important to consider job satisfaction as a potential moderator. Specifically, when preretirement job satisfaction was low, following role theory, working longer would make retirement a transition that brings relief, thus lead-ing to positive transition outcomes. However, when preretirement job satisfaction was high, following continuity theory, retirees who had worked longer would have a harder time adjusting to life without fewer work activities, thus leading to negative transition outcomes. Future studies may also investigate cultural values and government practice in retirement polices as potential moderators to understand inconsistent findings across samples from dif-ferent countries (Henkens & Van Dalen, 2003).

Bridge Employment

Bridge employment is defined as the pattern of labor force participation exhibited by older workers as they leave their career jobs and move toward complete labor force




withdrawal (Shultz, 2003). It is a relatively new area of study with most of the empirical studies emerging after 1990. The empirical examination started with describing the increased heterogeneity in labor force participation among retirees and showed that retirement was not synonymous with the absence of paid employment any more (e.g., Doeringer, 1990; Herz, 1995; Mutchler, Burr, Pienta, & Massagli, 1997; Quinn, 1997, 1999, 2000; Ruhm, 1990, 1994). These studies were often driven by the need to recognize and document the preva-lence of the phenomenon (e.g., Ruhm, 1990). As such, they often conceptualize bridge employment as a part of the retirement transition and adjustment process, which provides functional accounts for bridge employment. Furthermore, during this research stage, the predictors of bridge employment were often studied in an exploratory manner, mainly focus-ing on the demographics (e.g., age, race, gender, education, marital status; Ruhm, 1994) and socioeconomic variables (e.g., economy trend and unemployment level; Quinn, 2000).

Starting at the end of the 1990s, empirical studies began to systematically examine the antecedents of bridge employment decisions. The majority of them have conceptualized bridge employment as a motivated choice behavior that may facilitate retirees’ transition and adjustment to full retirement (Kim & Feldman, 2000). Accordingly, researchers have largely relied on the informed decision-making approach to conduct their investigations. For exam-ple, Weckerle and Shultz (1999) found that older workers who wanted to continue with bridge employment were more satisfied with their financial situations, had flexible jobs, and felt that the decision to retire would be voluntary. Kim and Feldman (2000) found that health status, job tenure, having a working spouse, and having dependent children were all posi-tively related to the extent of bridge employment for retirees. They also found that age, sal-ary at retirement, and the declination of early retirement opportunity were negatively related to the extent of bridge employment for retirees. Kim and DeVaney (2005) found that retirees who were self-employed and had college degrees were more likely to hold bridge jobs.

Incorporating the conceptualization that retirement is a career development stage, Davis (2003), von Bonsdorff et al. (2009), and Wang et al. (2008) recategorized bridge employment decisions into three types: career bridge employment (i.e., individuals accept bridge employ-ment in the same industry/field as their career jobs), bridge employment in a different field, and full retirement. Davis (2003) found that male retirees and retirees who had higher entre-preneurial orientations were more likely to engage in career bridge employment than full retirement, whereas married retirees and retirees who had longer organizational tenure were less likely to engage in career bridge employment than full retirement. Davis (2003) further found that younger retirees and retirees who had more desire to pursue a new career were more likely to engage in bridge employment in a different field than full retirement. von Bonsdorff et al. (2009) further found that employees, who perceived the job market to be good, wanted to have better use of their skills, and had less concerns about changes in their benefits, were more likely to want to hold bridge job in a different field than retire. Meanwhile, employees who had fewer nonwork interests, wanted to have better use of their skills, and had more monetary desire, were more inclined to want to hold career bridge job than retire. Finally, younger female employees who had fewer nonwork interests were more likely to want to hold career bridge job instead of bridge job in a different field.

Building on Kim and Feldman (2000) and Davis (2003), Wang et al. (2008) found that (a) retirees who were younger, received more years of education, had better health, experienced




less work stress and higher job satisfaction at preretirement jobs, and thought less about retirement, were more likely to engage in career bridge employment than full retirement; (b) retirees who were younger, received more years of education, had better health and finan-cial conditions, experienced less work stress at preretirement jobs, and thought less about retirement, were more likely to engage in bridge employment in a different field than full retirement; and (c) retirees who had better financial conditions and experienced less work stress and higher job satisfaction at preretirement jobs were more likely to engage in career bridge employment than bridge employment in a different field.

Conceptualizing retirement as a career development stage, other researchers have applied a job seeking model to understanding bridge employment. For example, Adams and Rau (2004) found that retirees’ age, traditional job search constraints, and work ethic were negatively related to job seeking, whereas their negative attitude toward retirement and job seeking social support were positively related to job seeking as expected. In another study, Loi and Shultz (2007) found that younger retirees were more motivated to seek bridge employment opportunities than older retirees for financial rea-sons, whereas older retirees were more motivated than younger retirees to seek jobs with more flexible schedules.

Furthermore, empirical studies on bridge employment that conceptualizes retirement/bridge employment as a part of human resource management have begun to emerge. These types of studies focus on addressing the research question: what are the desirable jobs or organizational characteristics of bridge employment that attract retirees? For example, Rau and Adams (2005) found that scheduling flexibility and a targeted equal employment opportunity statement positively influenced older workers’ attraction to the organization. Research along this line will be important for organizations to develop better recruitment strategies and practices to attract retirees to the bridge employment jobs they offer.

Relatively fewer studies, however, have examined outcomes of bridge employment. These studies have mainly conceptualized bridge employment as a part of the transition and adjustment process of retirement and accordingly, role theory and continuity theory have been most often used as the theoretical frameworks for this type of investigations. For example, Kim and Feldman (2000) found that bridge employment was positively related to both retirees’ retirement satisfaction and life satisfaction. Wang (2007) found that bridge employment helped retirees to maintain their psychological well-being during the retirement transition process. In a recent study, Zhan et al. (in press) applied both role theory and con-tinuity theory and found that retirees who engaged in bridge employment had fewer major diseases and declines of daily functions than those who engaged in full retirement. They also found that compared with retirees who engaged in full retirement, career bridge employment was beneficial to retirees’ mental health, whereas bridge employment in a different field did not show a beneficial effect to retirees’ mental health. Another study by Dendinger, Adams, and Jacobson (2005) showed that the generative reason for working (i.e., working for teach-ing and sharing knowledge with the younger generation) was positively related to retirees’ bridge employment satisfaction and attitude toward retirement, whereas the social reason for working was negatively related to retirees’ attitude toward retirement.

Reviewing the empirical findings in the research on bridge employment, several gaps should be noted. First, there is a lack of research that examines bridge employment as a




longitudinal phenomenon. For example, we typically assume that during bridge employ-ment, retirees would gradually decrease their labor force participation and finally fully transition into retirement. This is the basis for believing that bridge employment may facilitate retirees’ transition and adjustment to full retirement (Kim & Feldman, 2000; Wang et al., 2009). However, this may not be the case in reality. It is plausible that bridge employ-ment serves as a good adjustment mechanism and follows a smooth workforce withdrawal trajectory for some retirees, but it could also be a “bumpy” process for other retirees, driven by motivations that are not related to adjustment to workforce withdrawal. Future research needs to explore more about the actual bridge employment process and provide a more comprehensive evaluation on its form and functions.

Second, inconsistency exists regarding the effects of family-related variables in predicting bridge employment decisions. For example, Kim and DeVaney (2005), Kim and Feldman (2000), and Wang et al. (2008) all failed to find a predictive effect of marital status. This inconsistency may be due to the fact that there are other aspects of family-related life that may moderate the effects of these particular predictors. For example, Wang (2007) has shown that one’s spouse’s work status moderated the predictive effect of marital status on retirement transition and adjustment patterns. An alternative explanation may be that the family-related variables are overshadowed by other more proximal predictors (e.g., financial pressure or health considerations; Barnes-Farrell, 2003). Future studies may consider testing more complex models for effects of family-related variables.

Third, one important gap in the previous literature is that no study has systematically examined the financial outcomes of bridge employment. Specifically, although we know that some retirees engage in bridge employment for financial reasons (e.g., Kim & Feldman, 2000; Wang et al., 2008), we are still unclear about whether retirees with bridge employment would necessarily do better financially. Thus, empirical studies need to explicate how bridge employment may influence one’s financial well-being in both the short and long terms.

Finally, bridge employment’s relationships with a lot of other variables (both as anteced-ents and outcomes) are still unknown. Here, we highlight several concrete theoretical approaches that would help guide the search for potential relevant variables. First, a new-comer socialization model (Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007) could be applied to study job outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job per-formance, and turnover) of bridge employment. Following this model, these job outcomes are proximally determined by retirees’ adjustment to bridge employment jobs (e.g., role clar-ity, social acceptance at work, self-efficacy in conducting the job) and distally determined by both retirees’ information seeking and organizational socialization tactics. Second, a resource allocation model (e.g., Edwards & Rothbard, 2000) may be applied to conceptual-izing linkages between bridge employment and family-related variables. Specifically, bridge employment jobs may change retirees’ resource allocation in time, attention, and energy that are invested on both work and nonwork activities. As such, a broad range of family-related behaviors (e.g., leisure activities, intimacy behaviors, child care, and elder care) may be influenced by the shift in resource allocations. Third, the demand-control model (e.g., Karasek & Theorell, 1990) could be applied to recognizing the effects of job embedded work stressors (e.g., quantitative and qualitative workload, organizational constraints, time pres-sure) on retirees’ safety behaviors and physical and psychological well-being. Finally,




combining the models of selective optimization with compensation (e.g., Baltes, 1997) and job seeking (e.g., Kanfer, Wanberg, & Kantrowitz, 2001) may better explain job search and job choice related behaviors associated with bridge employment.

New Theoretical Directions in Retirement Research

Now that we have reviewed both theoretical and empirical advancements in the litera-ture since Beehr (1986), we propose several new theoretical directions to help guide fur-ther theoretical improvement in retirement studies. The new theoretical directions we propose here include incorporating a person–environment fit framework (e.g., Ostroff & Schulte, 2007) in studying retirement and bridge employment decision making, applying a resource perspective (e.g., Hobfoll, 2002) to understanding the retirement transition and adjustment process, and taking a dynamic perspective to advance the conceptualization of bridge employment (e.g., Wang et al., 2009).

Incorporating a Person–Environment Fit Framework for Retirement Decision Making

Reviewing the literature on retirement and bridge employment decision making, one important conceptual gap is that although studies have theorized antecedents at multiple levels (e.g., individual, job, organizational, and societal), the informed decision-making approach that most studies follow is not capable of explicating how variables from multiple levels interact in influencing retirement/bridge employment decisions. This can be improved by incorporating a person–environment (P-E) fit framework. According to Caplan (1987; also see Ostroff & Schulte, 2007), P-E fit framework argues that it is the level of match between person characteristics and environmental characteristics that determines how people react to specific situations. Typically, it is expected that high congruence between commen-surate person and environment dimensions yield more positive outcomes. This premise was later extended to several more specific P-E interactive types, including person–job (P-J) fit, person–group (P-G) fit, person–organizational (P-O) fit, and person–supervisor (P-S) fit (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). Following this premise, we can conceptu-alize the decision to retire as a result of misfit between employees’ personal characteristics (e.g., personality, ability, motivation, health, and financial status) and the characteristics of their job, group, organization, and supervisors. Similarly, we can also conceptualize the deci-sion to engage in bridge employment as a result of misfit between retirees’ personal charac-teristics and the characteristics of the environment in their full retirement (e.g., leisure activity, social network and contact, pension income, and health care insurance).

Edwards and Shipp (2007) summarized three functional mechanisms (i.e., needs–supplies fit, demands–abilities fit, and supplementary fit) that explain the effects of fit/misfit on differ-ent outcomes. We contend that these three mechanisms could also explain how the match between employees/retirees’ personal characteristics and their environmental characteristics influences their retirement/bridge employment decisions. First, the needs–supplies fit mecha-nism indicates that when supplies from the environment are insufficient to fulfill personal




needs, people experience misfit. For example, some older workers need to fulfill family care obligations. However, such need may not be supplied by a job that does not allow for a flex-ible schedule. As such, when having to decide whether to retire, older workers with family care needs will be more likely to retire from such jobs. Second, the demands–abilities fit mechanism suggests that when individual abilities are not sufficient to meet environmental demands, people experience misfit. For example, for retirees who do not have enough finan-cial resource to meet the financial demands in an inflated economy, they are more likely to take bridge employment jobs. Finally, the supplementary fit mechanism concerns the com-parison between the person and his or her environment. If the similarity (e.g., demographic and value congruence) is low, people will perceive less of affiliation, belonging, closure, and clarity, which leads to the experience of misfit (e.g., Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). As such, older workers who have high generative motivation may be more likely to retire from an organization that does not value experience and knowledge sharing.

Applying a Resource Perspective for Retirement Transition and Adjustment

Turning to the literature on retirement transition and adjustment, it seems that each theory used in those studies could only explain the outcomes for a subset of retirees (e.g., Pinquart & Schindler, 2007; Wang, 2007). Therefore, a more integrated theory, such as the resource perspective may be useful to account for the findings and to guide future research. According to Hobfoll (2002), resource can be broadly defined as the total capability an individual has to fulfill his or her centrally valued needs. In the retirement context, this total capability may include one’s physical resources (e.g., muscle strength; McArdle, Vasilaki, & Jackson, 2002), cognitive resources (e.g., processing speed and working memory; Park, 2000), moti-vational resources (e.g., self-efficacy; Bandura, 1997), financial resources (e.g., salary and pension; Taylor & Doverspike, 2003), social resources (e.g., social network and social sup-port; Kim & Feldman, 2000), and emotional resources (e.g., mood and affectivity; Dormann & Zapf, 2004). With this resource perspective, well-being changes along the transition and adjustment process (e.g., Gorgievski-Duijvesteijn, Bakker, Schaufeli, & van der Heijden, 2005) can be viewed as resulting from resource change. Regarding retirement transition and adjustment patterns, if a retiree’s total resource significantly decreases comparing to the reference point (i.e., prior to the retirement), he or she may experience negative change in well-being. Furthermore, if an individual’s retirement enables investment of more resources (e.g., due to gaining cognitive resources that were previously occupied by stressful jobs) in fulfilling centrally valued needs, he or she may experience positive change in well-being. Another characteristic of the resource perspective is that resources can be accumulated over time (Hobfoll, 2002). As such, it accounts for the observation that over time retirement adjustment leads to a better well-being state in the postretirement trajectory.

When considering the predictors of retirement transition and adjustment outcomes, researchers may focus on examining antecedents that have direct impact on different types of resources. This theorizing offers a large scope of antecedents that could be examined, including variables from macrolevel (e.g., societal norms and government policies), organi-zational level (e.g., organizational climate and human resource practice), job level (e.g., job




conditions), and individual level (e.g., health behaviors and personal development). As such, adopting the resource perspective may lead to more comprehensive and fruitful examination of different retirement transition and adjustment outcomes. For example, applying the resource perspective, certain individual differences (e.g., openness to change, goal orienta-tion in retirement, and need for structure), which may impact retirees’ motivational resources, and certain environmental factors (e.g., family support, community cohesiveness, and unem-ployment rate in the local labor market), which may impact retirees’ financial and social resources, can be hypothesized to predict how fast the turning points will be reached for retirees who experience negative change first but positive change in their well-being later. This is because the more resources the retirees accumulate, the more likely they will switch from the downward trend to the upward trend.

Conceptualizing Bridge Employment With a Dynamic Perspective

As we reviewed earlier, in the existing literature—both theoretical development and empirical examination—bridge employment choice is often conceptualized as a onetime decision-making event (e.g., Davis, 2003; Feldman, 1994; Kim & DeVaney, 2005; von Bonsdorff et al, 2009). As such, we propose to replace this one-time decision-making con-ceptualization with a dynamic perspective to better understand the bridge employment tran-sition process. Specifically, this dynamic perspective emphasizes that bridge employment is a longitudinal workforce participation process between one’s retirement decision and enter-ing full retirement. There are several advantages for endorsing this dynamic perspective.

First of all, this dynamic conceptualization of bridge employment gets closer in reflecting the reality of bridge employment. Wang et al. (2009) found that among retirees who retired between 1992 and 1996, about 50% took at least one bridge employment job in the 8 years following their retirement. Among these retirees who took bridge employment jobs, only about 33% always had bridge employment jobs over the 8 years, whereas the majority of them (about 66%) transferred in and out of bridge employment jobs (i.e., from “employed” to “not employed” or from “not employed” to “employed”) during the 8-year time period. This finding suggests that retirees often have to make bridge employment decisions in dif-ferent time periods. Therefore, adopting the dynamic perspective helps comprehensively capture the reality in retirees’ bridge employment decision making.

Second, endorsing this dynamic perspective in conceptualizing bridge employment phenom-ena provides opportunities for capturing the retirement adjustment component embedded in the bridge employment process. Unlike retirement decision making, which is often normative and dominated by health and financial reasons (Barnes-Farrell, 2003), bridge employment decisions are often implicitly driven by the motivation to adjust to retirement life (Wang, 2007; Wang et al., 2008). Therefore, studying the dynamic patterns of retirees’ longitudinal changes in bridge employment provides another way for us to understand the retirement transition and adjustment process.

Third, endorsing this dynamic perspective in conceptualizing bridge employment also provides methodological opportunities for better evaluating more distal antecedents and outcomes of bridge employment. For example, as noted earlier, the central premise of the




life course perspective is that the variability in people’s developmental history and context will influence people’s retirement transition and bridge employment status. However, tests of this premise often yield inconsistent findings in empirical studies. As Barnes-Farrell (2003) pointed out, although a number of individual and contextual factors such as individ-ual dispositions (e.g., locus of control and self-image orientation), psychosocial variables (e.g., social support and organizational climate), and family-related variables (e.g., marital status and marital quality) may have the potential to influence retirees’ preferences and intentions for bridge employment, these variables do not always play out in terms of actual decision making at one specific time point. Instead, their predictive effects may be overshad-owed by other more proximal predictors at that time point (e.g., financial pressure or health considerations; Barnes-Farrell, 2003; Wang et al., 2008). Therefore, although these individual and contextual variables may be theoretically relevant to bridge employment decision at each specific time point, their effects may be better tested in a model that predicts the overall dynamic characteristics of bridge employment (e.g., frequency or average level of involve-ment in engaging in bridge employment during a long period of retirement life). In other words, these distal variables can be viewed as background variables that shape the decision-making contingencies, thus predicting the longitudinal bridge employment change patterns better than the one snap-shot measure of bridge employment status.

Similar logic applies to examining outcomes of bridge employment as well. We should recognize that it is not the onetime bridge employment decision that shapes retirees’ adjust-ment patterns, retirement life quality, or health, but the overall length and quality of bridge employment. Therefore, the current operationalization of bridge employment in the litera-ture (i.e., one snap-shot status measure) tends to provide unreliable estimates for beneficial effects of bridge employment on retirement adjustment outcomes and health outcomes (e.g., Wang et al., 2009). Furthermore, applying the dynamic conceptualization of bridge employ-ment may also help us to clarify the beneficial effects of bridge employment. It is conceiv-able that at the beginning of the retirement transition, bridge employment is beneficial in maintaining the continuity of life patterns and styles, thus, leading to salient positive psycho-logical outcomes. With the retirement adjustment approaching a desirable state, the benefi-cial effect of bridge employment may become more physical and activity based, thus leading to more salient physical and functional benefits on retirees’ health.

References

AARP. 2005. The business case of workers age 50+: Planning for tomorrow’s talent needs for today’s competitive environment. Washington, DC: Author.

Adams, G. A. 1999. Career-related variables and planned retirement age: An extension of Beehr’s model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55: 221-235.

Adams, G. A., & Beehr, T. A. 1998. Turnover and retirement: A comparison of their similarities and differences. Personnel Psychology, 51: 643-665.

Adams, G. A., Prescher, J., Beehr, T. A., & Lepisto, L. 2002. Applying work-role attachment theory to retirement decision-making. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 54: 125-137.

Adams, G., & Rau, B. 2004. Job seeking among retirees seeking bridge employment. Personnel Psychology, 57:719-744.

Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 179-211.




Alley, D., & Crimmins, E. 2007. The demography of aging and work. In K. S. Shultz & G. A. Adams (Eds.), Aging and work in the 21st century: 7-23. New York: Psychology Press.

Anderson, C. E., & Weber, J. A. 1993. Preretirement planning and perceptions of satisfaction among retirees. Educational Gerontology, 19: 397-406.

Anson, O., Antonovsky, A., Sagy, S., & Adler, I. 1989. Family, gender, and attitudes toward retirement. Sex Roles, 20: 355-369.

Appold, S. J. 2004. How much longer would men work if there were no employment dislocation? Estimates from cause-elimination work life tables. Social Science Research, 33: 660-680.

Ashforth, B. 2001. Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Atchley, R. C. 1999. Continuity theory, self, and social structure. In C. D. Ryff & V. W. Marshall (Eds.), Families and retirement: 145-158. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Atchley, R. C. 1989. A continuity theory of normal aging. The Gerontologist, 29: 183-190.Atchley, R. C., & Robinson, J. L. 1982. Attitudes toward retirement and distance from the event. Research on Aging,

4: 299-313.Baltes, P. B. 1997. On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny: Selection, optimization, and compensation

as foundation of developmental theory. American Psychologist, 52: 366-380.Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Barnes-Farrell, J. L. 2003. Beyond health and wealth: Attitudinal and other influences on retirement decision-

making. In G. A. Adams & T. A. Beehr (Eds.), Retirement: Reasons, processes, and results: 159-187. New York: Springer.

Barnes-Farrell, J. L. 2005. Older workers. In J. Barling, E. K., Kelloway, & M. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress: 431-454. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. 2007. Newcomer adjustment during organi-zational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 707-721.

Beach, L. R., & Frederickson, J. R. 1989. Image theory: An alternative description of audit decisions. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 14: 101-112.

Becker, G. 1965. A theory of the allocation of time. Economic Journal, 75, 493-517.Beehr, T. A. 1986. The process of retirement: A review and recommendations for future investigation. Personnel

Psychology, 39: 31-56.Beehr, T. A., & Bennett, M. M. 2007. Examining retirement from a multi-level perspective. In K. S. Shultz &

G. A. Adams (Eds.), Aging and work in the 21st century: 277-302. New York: Psychology Press.Beehr, T. A., Glazer, S., Nielson, N. L., & Farmer, S. J. 2000. Work and nonwork predictors of employees’ retire-

ment ages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57: 206-225.Belgrave, L. L., & Haug, M. R. 1995. Retirement transition and adaptation: Are health and finances losing their

effects? Journal of Clinical Geropsychology, 1: 43-66.Bidwell, J., Griffin, B., & Hesketh, B. 2006. Timing of retirement: Including delay discounting perspective in retire-

ment model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68: 368-387.Birati, A., & Tziner, A. 1995. Successful promotion of early retirement: A quantitative approach. Human Resource

Management Review, 5: 53-62.Bosse, R., Aldwin, C. M., Levenson, M. R., & Workman-Daniels, K. 1991. How stressful is retirement?

Findings from the Normative Aging Study. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 46B: P9-P14.Brougham, R. R., & Walsh, D. A. 2007. Image theory, goal incompatibility, and retirement intent. International

Journal of Aging and Human Development, 63: 203-229.Cahill, K. E., Giandrea, M. D., & Quinn, J. F. 2006. Retirement patterns from career employment. The Gerontologist,

46: 514-523.Calasanti, T. M. 1996. Gender and life satisfaction in retirement: An assessment of the male model. Journals of

Gerontology: Social Sciences, 51B: S18-S29.Chirikos, T., & Nestel, G. 1989. Occupation, impaired health, and the functional capacity of men to continue work-

ing. Research on Aging, 11: 174-205.Choi, N. G. 2001. Relationship between life satisfaction and postretirement employment among older women.

International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 52: 45-70.




Caplan, R. D. 1987. Person-environment fit theory: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31: 248-267.

Cron, W. L., Jackofsky, E. F., & Slocum, J. W. 1993. Job performance and attitudes of disengagement stage sales-people who are about to retire. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 13: 1-13.

Davis, M. A. 2003. Factors related to bridge employment participation among private sector early retirees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63: 55-71.

Dendinger, V. M., Adams, G. A., & Jacobson, J. D. 2005. Reasons for working and their relationship to retirement attitudes, job satisfaction and occupational self-efficacy of bridge employees. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 61: 21-35.

DeVaney, S. A., & Kim, H. 2003. Older self-employed workers and planning for the future. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 37: 123-142.

Doeringer, P. B. 1990. Bridges to retirement. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Doerpinghaus, H. I., & Feldman, D. C. 2001. Early retirement penalties in defined benefit pensions. Journal of

Managerial Issues, 13: 273-287.Dorfman, L. T. 1989. Retirement preparation and retirement satisfaction in the rural elderly. Journal of Applied

Gerontology, 8, 432-450.Dorfman, L. T. 1992. Academics and the transition to retirement. Educational Gerontology, 18: 343-363.Dorfman, L. T., & Douglas, K. 2005. Leisure and the retired professor: Occupation matters. Educational

Gerontology, 31: 343-361.Dorfman, L. T., & Heckert, D. A. 1988. Egalitarianism in retired rural couples: Household tasks, decision making,

and leisure activities. Family Relations, 37: 73-78.Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. 2004. Customer-related social stressors and burnout. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 9: 61-82.Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. 2000. Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between

work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25: 178-199.Edwards, J. R. & Shipp, A. J. 2007. The relationship between person-environment fit and outcomes: An integrative

theoretical framework. In C. Ostroff & T. A. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational fit: 209-258. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ekerdt, D. J. 2004. Born to retire: The foreshortened lifecourse. The Gerontologist, 43: 3-9.Ekerdt, D. J., Bosse, R., & LoCastro, J. S. 1983. Claims that retirement improves health. Journal of Gerontology,

38: 231-236.Ekerdt, D. J., Hackney, J., Kosloski, K., & DeViney, S. 2001. Eddies in the stream: The prevalence of uncertain

plans for retirement. Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 56B: S162-S170.Ekerdt, D. J., Kosloski, K, & DeViney, S. 2000. The normative anticipation of retirement by older workers.

Research on Aging, 22: 3-22.Elder, G. H. 1995. The life course paradigm: social change and individual development. In P. Moen, G. H. Elder,

& K. Luscher (Eds.), Examining lives in contexts: Perspectives on the ecology of human development: 101-139. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Elder, G. H., & Johnson, M. K. 2003. The life course and aging: Challenges, lessons, and new directions. In R. A. Settersten, Jr. (Ed.), Invitation to the life course: Toward new understandings of later life: 49-81. Amityville, NY: Baywood.

Elder, H. W., & Rudolph, P. M. 1999. Does retirement planning affect the level of retirement satisfaction? Financial Service Review, 8: 117-127.

Elovainio, M., Forma, P., Kivimaki, M., Sinervo, T., Sutinen, R., & Laine, M. 2005. Job demands and job control as correlates of early retirement thoughts in Finnish social and health care employees. Work & Stress, 19: 84-92.

Engen, E. M., Gale, W. G., & Uccello, C. E. 1999. The adequacy of household saving. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2: 65-187.

Feldman, D. C. 1994. The decision to retire early: A review and conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 19: 285-311.

Feldman, D. C. 2003. Endgame: The design and implementation of early retirement incentive programs. In G. A. Adams & T. A. Beehr (Eds.), Retirement: Reasons, processes, and results: 83-114. New York: Springer.

Feldman, D. C. 2007. Career mobility and career stability among older workers. In K. S. Shultz & G. A. Adams (Eds.), Aging and work in the 21st century: 179-197. New York: Psychology Press.




Ferris, G. R., Arthur, M. M., Berkson, H. M., Kaplan, D. M., Harrell-Cook, G., & Frink, D. D. 1998. Toward a social context theory of the human resource management—organization effectiveness relationship. Human Resource Management Review, 8: 235-264.

Finkelstein, L. M., & Farrell, S. K. 2007. An expanded view of age bias in the workplace. In K. S. Shultz & G. A. Adams (Eds.), Aging and work in the 21st century: 73-108. New York: Psychology Press.

Fretz, B. R., Kluge, N. A., Ossana, S. M., Jones, S. M., & Merikangas, M. W. 1989. Intervention targets for reduc-ing preretirement anxiety and depression. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36: 301-307.

Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. 1998. Selection, optimization, and compensation as strategies of life management: Correlations with subjective indicators of successful aging. Psychology and Aging, 13: 531-543.

Fronstin, P. 1999. Retirement patterns and employee benefits: Do benefits matter? The Gerontologist, 39: 37-47.Gall, T. L., Evans, D. R., & Howard, J. 1997. The retirement adjustment process: Changes in the well-being of male

retirees across time. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 52B: P110-P117.Gallo, W. T., Bradley, E. H., Siegel, M., & Kasl, S. 2000. Health effects of involuntary job loss among older work-

ers: Findings from the Health and Retirement Survey. Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 55B: S131-S140.

George, L. K. 1993. Sociological perspectives on life transitions. Annual Review of Sociology, 19: 353-373.Glass, J. C., & Kilpatrick, B. B. 1998. Gender comparisons of baby boomers and financial preparation for retire-

ment. Educational Gerontology, 24: 719-745.Gobeski, K. T., & Beehr, T. A. 2008. How retirees work: Predictors of different types of bridge employment.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37: 401-425.Gorgievski-Duijvesteijn, M., Bakker, A., Schaufeli, W., & van der Heijden, P. 2005. Finances and well-being:

A dynamic equilibrium model of resources. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10: 210-224.Gowan, M. A. 1998. A preliminary investigation of the factors affecting appraisal of the decision to take early retire-

ment. Journal of Employment Counseling, 35: 124-140.Greller, M. M., & Stroh, L. K. 2003. Extending work lives: Are current approaches tools or talismans? In G. A.

Adams & T. A. Beehr (Eds.), Retirement: Reasons, processes, and results: 115-135. New York: Springer.Gruber, J., & Wise, D. A. 1999, Social security and retirement around the world. Research in Labor Economics, 18:

1-40.Gustman, A. L., & Steinmeier, T. L. 1986. A structural retirement model. Econometrica, 54: 555-584.Gustman, A. L., & Steinmeier, T. L. 1998. Effects of pensions on saving: Analysis with data from the Health and

Retirement Survey (NBER Working Paper No. 668I). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Hall, D. T. 2004. The protean career: A quarter century journey. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65: 1-13.Hall, D. T., & Mirvis, P. H. 1995. The new career contract: Developing the whole person at midlife and beyond.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47: 269-289.Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. 1990. Job attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An examination of retirement and

other voluntary withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37: 60-78.Hansson, R. O., Robson, S. M., & Limas, M. J. 2001. Stress and coping among older workers. Work: Journal of

Prevention, Assessment, & Rehabilitation, 17: 247-256.Hardy, M. A., & Hazelrigg, L. 1999. A multilevel model of early retirement decisions among autoworkers in plants

with different futures. Research on Aging, 21: 275-303.Hardy, M. A., & Quadagno, J. 1995. Satisfaction with early retirement: Making choices in the auto industry.

Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 50B: S217-S228.Hatcher, C. B. 2003. The economics of the retirement decision. In G. A. Adams & T. A. Beehr (Eds.), Retirement:

Reasons, processes, and results: 136-158. New York: Springer.Hayes, B. C., & VandenHeuvel, A. 1994. Attitudes toward mandatory retirement: An international comparison.

International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 39: 209-231.Hayslip, B., Beyerlein, M., & Nicolas, J. A. 1997. Assessing anxiety about retirement: The case of academi-

cians. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 44: 15-36.Hayward, M. D., Grady, W. R., Hardy, M. A., & Sommers, D. 1989. Occupational influences on retirement, dis-

ability, and death. Demography, 26: 393-409.Hedge, J. W., Borman, W. C., & Lammlein, S. E. 2006. The aging workforce: Realities, myths, and implications

for organizations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Henkens, K. 1999. Retirement intentions and spousal support: A multifactor approach. Journals of Gerontology:

Social Sciences, 54B: S63-S73.




Henkens, K., & Tazelaar, F. 1997. Explaining early retirement decisions of civil servants in the Netherlands: Intentions, behavior and the discrepancy between the two. Research on Aging, 19: 129-173.

Henkens, K., & Van Dalen, H. P. 2003. Early retirement systems and behaviors in an international perspective. In G. A. Adams & T. A. Beehr (Eds.), Retirement: Reasons, processes, and results: 242-263. New York: Springer.

Henkens, K., & van Solinge, H. 2002. Spousal influences on the decision to retire. International Journal of Sociology, 32: 55-74.

Hershey, D. A. 2007. Psychological determinants of financial preparedness for retirement. The Gerontologist, 40: 687-697.

Hershey, D. A., Henkens, K., & Van Dalen, H. P. 2007. Mapping the minds of retirement planners. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38: 361-382.

Hershey, D. A., Jacobs-Lawson, J. M., McArdle, J. J., & Hamagami, F. 2007. Psychological foundations of financial planning for retirement. Journal of Adult Development, 14: 26-36.

Hershey, D. A., Jacobs-Lawson, J. M., & Neukam, K. A. 2002. The influence of aging and gender on workers goals for retirement. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 55: 163-179.

Hershey, D. A., Mowen, J. C., & Jacobs-Lawson, J. M. 2003. An experimental comparison of retirement planning intervention seminars. Educational Gerontology, 29: 339-359.

Herz, D. E. 1995. Work after retirement: An increasing trend among men. Monthly Labor Review, 118: 13-20.Hobfoll, S. E. 2002. Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6: 307-324.Huuhtanen, P., & Piispa, M. 1992. Work and retirement attitudes of 50- to 64-year-old people at work and on pen-

sion. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 18: 21-23.Hyde, M., Ferrie, J., Higgs, P., Mein, G., & Nazroo, J. 2004. The effects of pre-retirement factors and retirement

route on circumstances in retirement: Findings from the Whitehall II study. Ageing & Society, 24: 279-296.Isaksson, K., & Johansson, G. 2000. Adaptation to continued work and early retirement following downsizing:

Long-term effects and gender differences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73: 241-256.

Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. 1995. Understanding human resource management in the context of organizations and their environments. Annual Review of Psychology, 46: 237-264.

Jex, S., Wang, M., & Zarubin, A. 2007. Aging and occupational health. In K. S. Shultz & G. A. Adams (Eds.), Aging and work in the 21st century: 199-224. New York: Psychology Press.

Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. 2004. Aging, adult development, and work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 29: 440-458.

Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C., & Kantrowitz, T. 2001. Job search and employment: A personality-motivational analysis and meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 837-855.

Karasek, R. A., & Theorell, T. 1990. Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books.

Karpansalo, M., Manninen, P., Kauhanen, J., Lakka, T., & Salonen, J. 2004. Perceived health as a predictor of early retirement. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 30: 287-292.

Katz, D., & Kahn R. L. 1978. The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.Kim, H., & DeVaney, S. A. 2005. The selection of partial or full retirement by older workers. Journal of Family and

Economic Issues, 26: 371-394.Kim, J., Kwon, J., & Anderson, E. A. 2005. Factors related to retirement confidence: Retirement preparation and

workplace financial education. Financial Counseling and Planning, 16: 77-89.Kim, J. E., & Moen, P. 2001. Is retirement good or bad for subjective well-being? Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 10: 83-86.Kim, J. E., & Moen, P. 2002. Retirement transitions, gender, and psychological well-being: A life-course, ecologi-

cal model. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 57B: P212-P222.Kim, S. 2003. The impact of research productivity on early retirement of university professors. Industrial Relations:

A Journal of Economy & Society, 42: 106-125.Kim, S., & Feldman, D. C. 1998. Healthy, wealthy, or wise: Predicting actual acceptances of early retirement incen-

tives at three points in time. Personnel Psychology, 51: 623-642.Kim, S., & Feldman, D. C. 2000. Working in retirement: The antecedents of bridge employment and its conse-

quences for quality of life in retirement. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 1195-1210.Kling, K. C., Ryff, C. D., Love, G., & Essex, M. 2003. Exploring the influence of personality on depressive symp-

toms and self-esteem across a significant life transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85: 922-932.




Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. 2005. Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58: 281-342.

Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. 2005. Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the 21st century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56: 485-516.

Levinson, D. J. 1986. A conception of adult development. American Psychologist, 41: 3-13.Levinson, D. J., & Levinson, J. D. 1996. The seasons of a woman’s life. New York: Knopf.Levy-Shiff, R. 1994. Individual and contextual correlates of marital change across the transition to parenthood.

Developmental Psychology, 30: 591-601.Lin, T., & Hsieh, A. 2001. Impact of job stress on early retirement intention. International Journal of Stress

Management, 8: 243-247.Loi, J., & Shultz, K. 2007. Why older adults seek employment: Differing motivations among subgroups. Journal of

Applied Gerontology, 26: 274-289.Luchak, A. A., Pohler, D. M., & Gellatly, I. R. 2008. When do committed employees retire? The effects of organi-

zational commitment on retirement plans under a defined-benefit pension plan. Human Resource Management, 47: 581-599.

Lund, T., & Villadsen, E. 2005. Who retires early and why? Determinants of early retirement pension among Danish employees 57-62 years. European Journal of Aging, 2: 275-280.

Makino, N. 1994. Preretirement education and life planning programs in Japan. Educational Gerontology, 20: 503-510.

Marshall, V. W., Clarke, P. J., & Ballantyne, P. J. 2001. Instability in the retirement transition: Effects on health and well-being in a Canadian study. Research on Aging, 23: 379-409.

Matthews, A. M., & Brown, K. H. 1987. Retirement as a critical life event: The differential experiences of women and men. Research on Aging, 9: 548-571.

McArdle, A., Vasilaki, A., & Jackson, M. 2002. Exercise and skeletal muscle aging: Cellular and molecular mechanisms. Aging Research Reviews, 1: 79-93.

Mears, A., Kendall, T., Katona, C., Pashley, C., & Pajak, S. 2004. Retirement intentions of older consultant psychia-trists. Psychiatric Bulletin, 28: 130-132.

Mein, G., & Ellison, G. T. H. 2006. The impact of early retirement on perceptions of life at work and at home: Qualitative analyses of British civil servants participating in the Whitehall II Retirement Study. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 63: 187-216.

Midanik, L. T., Soghikian, K., Ransom, L. J., & Tekawa, I. S. 1995. The effect of retirement on mental health and health behaviors: The Kaiser Permanente Retirement Study. Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 50B: S59-S61.

Mitchell, T. R., & Daniels, D. 2003. Motivation. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, Vol. 12: 225-254. New York: Wiley.

Moen, P., Dempster-McClain, D., & Williams, R. W., Jr. 1992. Successful aging: A life course perspective on women’s multiple roles and health. American Journal of Sociology, 97: 1612-1638.

Moen, P., Kim., J. E., & Hofmeister, H. 2001. Couples’ work/retirement transitions, gender, and marital quality. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64: 55-71.

Morrow-Howell, N., & Leon, J. 1988. Life-span determinants of work in retirement years. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 27: 125-140.

Mutchler, J. E., Burr, J. A., Pienta, A. M., & Massagli, M. P. 1997. Pathways to labor force exit: Work transitions and work instability. Journals of Gerontology: Social Science, 52B: S4-S12.

Mutran, E. J., Reitzes, D. C., & Fernandez, M. E. 1996. Factors that influence attitudes toward retirement. Research on Aging, 19: 251-273.

Orel, N. A., Ford, R. A., & Brock, C. 2004. Women’s financial planning for retirement: The impact of disruptive life events. Journal of Women & Aging, 16: 39-53.

Ostroff, C., & Schulte, M. 2007. Multiple perspectives of fit in organizations across levels of analysis. In C. Ostroff, & T. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational fit: 3-69. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Park, D. C. 2000. The basic mechanisms accounting for age-related decline in cognitive function. In D. C. Park & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Cognitive aging: A primer: 3-22. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Penner, R. G., Perun, P., & Steuerle, E. 2002. Legal and institutional impediments to partial retirement and part-time work by older workers. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.




Pennings, E., & Sleuwaegen, L. 2000. International relocation: Firm and industry determinants. Economics Letters, 67: 179-186.

Perreira, K. M., & Sloan, F. A. 2001. Life events and alcohol consumption among mature adults: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 62: 501-508.

Phua, V. C., & McNally, J. W. 2008. Men planning for retirement: Changing meaning of preretirement planning. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 27: 588-608.

Pinquart, M., & Schindler, I. 2007. Changes of life satisfaction in the transition to retirement: A latent-class approach. Psychology and Aging, 22: 442-455.

Posthuma, R. A., & Campion, M. A. 2009. Age stereotypes in the workplace: Common stereotypes, moderators, and future research directions. Journal of Management, 35: 158-188.

Prothero, J., & Beach, L.R. 1984. Retirement decisions: Expectations, intentions, and action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14: 162-174.

Quick, H. E., & Moen, P. 1998. Gender, employment, and retirement quality: A life course approach to the differ-ential experiences of men and women. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1: 44-64.

Quinn, J. F. 1997. Retirement trends and patterns in the 1990s: The end of an era? Public Policy and Aging Report, 8: 10-14.

Quinn, J. F. 1999. Retirement patterns and bridge jobs in the 1990s (Issue Brief No. 206). Washington, DC: Employee Benefit Research Institute.

Quinn, J. F. 2000. New paths to retirement. In O. S. Mitchell, P. B. Hammond, & A. M. Rappaport (Eds.), Forecasting retirement needs and retirement wealth: 13-32. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Quinn, J. F., Burkhauser, R. V., & Myers, D. A. 1990. Passing the torch: The influence of economic incentives on work and retirement. Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn.

Rau, B. L., & Adams, G. A. 2005. Attracting retirees to apply: Desired organizational characteristics of bridge employment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26: 649-660.

Reeves, J. B., & Darville, R. L. 1994. Social contact patterns and satisfaction with retirement of women in dual-career/earner families. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 39: 163-175.

Reitzes, D. C., & Mutran, E. J. 2004. The transition into retirement: Stages and factors that influence retirement adjustment. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 59: 63-84.

Reitzes, D. C., Mutran, E. J., & Fernandez, M. E. 1998. The decision to retire early: A career perspective. Social Science Quarterly, 79: 607-619.

Reitzes, D. C., Mutran, E. J., & Fernandez, M. E. 1996. Preretirement influences on postretirement self-esteem. Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 51B: S242-S249.

Richardson, V., & Kilty, K. M. 1991. Adjustment to retirement: Continuity vs. discontinuity. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 33: 151-169.

Riley, M. W., & Riley, J. W., Jr. 1994. Structural lag: Past and future. In M. W. Riley, R. L. Kahn, & A. Foner (Eds.), Age and structural lag: The mismatch between people’s lives and opportunities in work, family, and leisure: 15-36. New York: Wiley.

Rix, S. E. 1990. Older workers. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.Rocco, T. S., & Plakhotnik, M. S. 2009. Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks:

Terms, functions, and distinctions. Human Resource Management Review, 8: 120-129.Rosenkoeter, M. M., & Garris, J. M. 1998. Psychosocial changes following retirement. Journal of Advanced

Nursing, 27: 966-976.Rosenkoeter, M. M., & Garris, J. M. 2001. Retirement planning, use of time, and psychosocial adjustment. Issues

in Mental Health Nursing, 22: 703-722.Ross, C. E., & Drentea, P. 1998. Consequences of retirement activities for distress and the sense of personal control.

Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 39: 317-334.Ruhm, C. J. 1990. Bridge jobs and partial retirement. Journal of Labor Economics, 8: 582-601.Ruhm, C. J. 1994. Bridge employment and job stopping: Evidence from the Harris/Commonwealth Fund Survey.

Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 6: 73-99.Schmidt, J. A., & Lee, K. 2008. Voluntary retirement and organizational turnover intentions: The differential asso-

ciations with work and non-work commitment constructs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22: 297-309.Schmitt, N., & McCune, J. T. 1981. The relationship between job attitudes and the decision to retire. Academy of

Management Journal, 24: 795-802.




Settersten, R. A. Jr. 1998. Time, age, and the transition to retirement: New evidence on life-course flexibility. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 47: 177-203.

Settersten, R. A. Jr., & Hagestad, G. 1996. What’s the latest? Cultural age deadlines for educational and work tran-sitions. The Gerontologist, 36: 602-613.

Shuey, K. M. 2004. Worker preferences, spousal coordination, and participation in an employer-sponsored pension plan. Research on Aging, 26: 287-316.

Shultz, K. S. 2003. Bridge employment: Work after retirement. In G. A. Adams & T.A. Beehr (Eds.), Retirement: Reasons, processes, and results: 214-241. New York: Springer.

Shultz, K. S., & Adams, G. A. 2007. In search of a unifying paradigm for understanding aging and work in the 21st century. In K. S. Shultz & G. A. Adams (Eds.), Aging and work in the 21st century: 303-319. New York: Psychology Press.

Shultz, K. S., Morton, K. R., & Weckerle, J. R. 1998. The influence of push and pull factors on voluntary and involuntary early retirees’ retirement decision and adjustment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53: 45-57.

Shultz, K. S., Taylor, M. A., & Morrison, R. F. 2003. Work related attitudes of Naval officers before and after retire-ment. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 57: 259-274.

Shultz, K. S., & Wang, M. 2008. The changing nature of mid- and late careers. In C. Wankel (Ed.), 21st century management: A reference handbook: 130-138. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shultz, K. S., & Wang, M. 2007. The influence of specific health conditions on retirement decisions. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 65: 149-161.

Shultz, K., Wang, M., Crimmins, E., & Fisher, G. In press. Age differences in the demand-control model of work stress: An examination of data from 15 European countries. Journal of Applied Gerontology.

Smith, D. B., & Moen, P. 2004. Retirement satisfaction for retirees and their spouses: Do gender and the retirement decision-making process matter? Journal of Family Issues, 25: 262-285.

Spiegel, P. E., & Shultz, K. S. 2003. The influence of preretirement planning and transferability of skills on Naval officers’ retirement satisfaction and adjustment. Military Psychology, 15: 285-307.

Stawski, R. S., Hershey, D. A., & Jacobs-Lawson, J. M. 2007. Goal clarity and financial planning activities as determinants of retirement savings contributions. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 64: 13-32.

Stull, D. E. 1988. A dyadic approach to predicting well-being in later life. Research on Aging, 10: 81-101.Sullivan, S. E. 1999. The changing nature of careers: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 25:

457-484.Super, C. E. 1990. A life-span, life-space approach to career development. In D. Brown (Ed.), Career choice and

development, 2nd ed.: 197-261. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Szinovacz, M. E. 2003. Contexts and pathways: Retirement as institution, process, and experience. In G. A. Adams

& T. A. Beehr (Eds.), Retirement: Reasons, processes, and results: 6-52. New York: Springer.Szinovacz, M. E., & Davey, A. 2004. Honeymoons and joint lunches: Effects of retirement and spouse’s employ-

ment on depressive symptoms. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 59B: P233-P245.Szinovacz, M. E., DeViney, S., & Davey, A. 2001. Influences of family obligations and relationships on retirement:

Variations by gender, race, and marital status. Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 56B: S20-S27.Szubert, Z., & Sobala, W. 2005. Current determinants of early retirement among blue collar workers in Poland.

International Journal of Occupational Medicine & Environmental Health, 18: 177-184.Talaga, J. A., & Beehr, T. A. 1995. Are there gender differences in predicting retirement decisions? Journal of

Applied Psychology, 80: 16-28.Taylor, M. A. & Doverspike, D. 2003. Retirement Planning and Preparation. In G. A. Adams & T. A. Beehr (Eds.).

Reasons, processes, and results: 53-82. New York: Springer.Taylor, M. A., & Geldhauser, H. A. 2007. Low-income older workers. In K. S. Shultz & G. A. Adams (Eds.), Aging

and work in the 21st century: 25-50. New York: Psychology Press.Taylor, M. A., Goldberg, C., Shore, L. M., & Lipka, P. 2008. The effects of retirement expectations and social support

on post-retirement adjustment: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23: 458-470.Taylor, M. A. & Shore, L. F. 1995. Predictors of planned retirement age: An application of Beehr’s model.

Psychology and Aging, 10: 76-83.Taylor, M. A., Shultz, K. S., Morrison, R. F., Spiegel, P. E., & Greene, J. 2007. Occupational attachment and met

expectations as predictors of retirement adjustment of naval officers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37: 1697-1725.




Taylor-Carter, M. A., Cook, K., & Weinberg, C. 1997. Planning and expectations of the retirement experience. Educational Gerontology, 23: 273-288.

Thoits, P. A. 1992. Identify structures and psychological well-being: Gender and marital status comparisons. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55: 236-256.

Toossi, M. 2004. Labor force projections to 2012: The graying of the U.S. workforce. Monthly Labor Review, 127: 3-22.

Tyers, R., & Shi, Q. 2007. Demographic change and policy responses: Implications for the global economy. World Economy, 1: 537-566.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2005. National income and product accounts. Retrieved July 29, 2005, from http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N

van Solinge, H., & Henkens, K. 2007. Involuntary retirement: The role of restrictive circumstances, timing, and social embeddedness. Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 62B: S295-S303.

van Solinge, H., & Henkens, K. 2008. Adjustment to and satisfaction with retirement: Two of a kind? Psychology and Aging, 23: 422-434.

von Bonsdorff, M. E., Shultz, K. S., Leskinen, E., & Tansky, J. 2009. The choice between retirement and bridge employment: A continuity and life course perspective. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 69: 79-100.

Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work and motivation. New York, Wiley.Wang, M. 2007. Profiling retirees in the retirement transition and adjustment process: Examining the longitudinal

change patterns of retirees’ psychological well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 455-474.Wang, M., Adams, G. A., Beehr, T. A., & Shultz, K. S. 2009. Career issues at the end of one’s career: Bridge

employment and retirement. In S. G. Baugh and S. E. Sullivan (Eds.), Maintaining focus, energy, and options through the life span: 135-162. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Wang, M., & Bodner, T. E. 2007. Growth mixture modeling: Identifying and predicting unobserved subpopulations with longitudinal data. Organizational Research Methods, 10: 635-656.

Wang, M., & Chen, Y. 2006. Age differences in attitude change: Influences of cognitive resources and motivation on responses to argument quantity. Psychology and Aging, 21: 581-589.

Wang, M., & Takeuchi, R. 2007. The role of goal orientation during expatriation: A cross-sectional and longitudinal investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1437-1445.

Wang, M., Zhan, Y., Liu, S., & Shultz, K. 2008. Antecedents of bridge employment: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 818-830.

Warr, P., Butcher, V., Robertson, I., & Callinan, M. 2004. Older people’s well-being as a function of employment, retirement, environmental characteristics, and role preferences. British Journal of Psychology, 95: 297-324.

Weckerle, J. R., & Shultz, K. S. 1999. Influences on the bridge employment decision among older USA workers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72: 317-330.

Wu, A. S., Tang, C. S., & Yan, E. C. 2005. Post-retirement voluntary work and psychological functioning among older Chinese in Hong Kong. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 20: 27-45.

Zhan, Y., Wang, M., Liu, S., & Shultz, K. In press. Bridge employment and retirees’ health: A longitudinal investi-gation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology.



Retirement Employee

Documents

Transcript of Retirement Employee