Identity

This article was downloaded by: [Auburn University Libraries] On: 20 August 2014, At: 10:44 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hidn20

Career Identity Development in College Students: Decision Making, Parental Support, and Work Experience a

Kate J. Stringer & Jennifer L. Kerpelman

a

a

Auburn University Published online: 12 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Kate J. Stringer & Jennifer L. Kerpelman (2010) Career Identity Development in College Students: Decision Making, Parental Support, and Work Experience, Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 10:3, 181-200, DOI: 10.1080/15283488.2010.496102 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2010.496102

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

Downloaded by [Auburn University Libraries] at 10:44 20 August 2014

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions


Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 10:181–200, 2010 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1528-3488 print/1532-706X online DOI: 10.1080/15283488.2010.496102

Career Identity Development in College Students: Decision Making, Parental Support, and Work Experience Kate J. Stringer Jennifer L. Kerpelman Auburn University

Identity exploration in the area of work is theorized to be salient in emerging adulthood, and according to Vondracek’s extensions of Erikson’s theory, self-realization may be achieved through integration of career choice into one’s identity. The present study aimed to address the extent to which parental support for career, work experience, and career decision self-efficacy influenced career identity evaluation in a sample of 345 students attending a 4-year college. Structural equation modeling results supported the hypothesized associations, showing that career decision self-efficacy (suggestive of commitment making) was associated with career identity evaluation. In addition, the number of jobs held was found to be more predictive of career decision self-efficacy and career identity evaluation than were perceptions of relevant work experience. Overall, results were consistent with the Luyckx and colleagues’ process model of identity development.

Emerging adulthood is a unique period in the life span and is characterized as a time of identity exploration with decisions being made in the areas of work, self, and love (Arnett, 2000). Identity exploration sets the foundation for commitments made during emerging adulthood and the years that follow, and it is during emerging adulthood that considerable identity exploration and commitments in the career domain occur, especially for college students. This period of exploration, in part, is due to the institutionalized moratorium (i.e., support for delaying decision making) of the college context (Côté, 2006; Erikson, 1968). However, prolonged, Address correspondence to Kate J. Stringer, HCHCTY, Center for Children, Youth and Families, Auburn University, 203 Spidle Hall, Auburn, AL 36849. E-mail: [email protected]


182

STRINGER AND KERPELMAN

unfocused exploration delays commitments and can be maladaptive (Meeus, Iedema, Helsen, & Vollebergh, 1999). Although there has been extensive research on identity processes and their development (e.g., Luyckx, Goossens, & Soenens, 2005, 2006), there has been only limited examination of the career domain. Identity development in the career domain is especially important during the college years, given the emphasis placed on career preparation. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate factors that influence career identity commitment among 4-year-college students. Research has suggested that identity commitments are important to individuals’ well-being and emotional adjustment (Berzonsky, 2003; Kunnen, Sappa, van Geert, & Bonica, 2008; Meeus, Iedema, Maassen, & Engels, 2005). Kunnen et al. found that trajectories of identity formation without commitment were more strongly associated with worse adjustment than those without exploration. More specific to the career domain, identity commitments in this domain have been associated positively with stability in career choices and satisfaction with work (Kidd & Green, 2004; Perrone, Ægisdóttir, Webb, & Blalock, 2006). Vondracek (1995) asserted that individuals can experience self-realization through vocational careers. Similar to Waterman’s (1990) description of personal expressiveness through one’s identity commitments, self-realization is the belief that one is reaching one’s full potential (Vondracek). Experiencing self-realization through a vocational career is likely to happen when decisions about a career are based on who one is (i.e., on the basis of interests, abilities, talents, and personality) and when career identity is integrated into one’s sense of self. Although career identity development is a process that consists of exploration and commitment (Skorikov & Vondracek, 2007), Skorikov and Vondracek found that the Vocational Identity Scale of the My Vocational Situation measure (Holland, Daiger, & Power, 1980) did not distinguish between the foreclosed and achieved statuses. Therefore, the Vocational Identity Scale did not account for career identity exploration. Measures such as the Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status-2 (Adams, Bennion, & Huh, 1989), which were developed to distinguish between the foreclosed and achieved statuses, account for exploration and commitment, but have very few items focusing on the career identity domain. In addition, further work by Luyckx et al. (2005, 2006) showed that there were multiple dimensions of exploration and commitment that should be accounted for when assessing domains of identity development. On the basis of Marcia’s (1966) identity status paradigm, Stephen, Fraser, and Marcia (1992) presented a process model whereby individuals continue to develop their identities through a process of repeated moratorium and achievement cycles. This suggests that individuals do not just achieve their identities, but they also make commitments and then must engage in continued exploration to maintain their commitments. In support of this, Bosma (1985) found that there was a distinction between individuals who made identity commitments and those who went


CAREER IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT

183

further to identify with their commitments. In addition, Meeus et al. (1999) provided evidence that foreclosure and achievement are both adaptive in terms of their associations with well-being, and they proposed that youth continually reconsider their identity commitments through continued in-depth exploration of the commitment. It is this in-depth exploration that distinguishes the “closure” and “achieving” identity statuses. Collectively, there is strong evidence to support the importance of commitment processes to identity formation. Luyckx et al. (2005, 2006) identified two cycles involved in the identity development process: commitment formation (i.e., exploration in breadth and decision making) and commitment evaluation (i.e., exploration in depth and identification with commitment). It is during this second process that identity commitments become more firm and integrated into a person’s sense of identity. Luyckx et al. (2005, 2006) found that the commitment formation process was associated with the commitment evaluation process in the student and relationship identity domains, but they did not test associations among these processes in the career domain. Luyckx et al.’s (2005, 2006) framework provides a basis for how individuals integrate career into their overall identities. The present study also is guided by Vondracek’s (1995) developmental-contextual perspective on achieving self-realization through vocational careers. This perspective suggests that career identity development during emerging adulthood is influenced by a number of important factors, such as career-decision self-efficacy, support for career from parents, and past work experiences that inform one’s career goals.

CAREER DECISION SELF-EFFICACY Past research has shown that an important predictor of in-depth career identity exploration and internalizing of identity commitments is career decision self-efficacy (Brown & Lavish, 2006; Chung, 2002; Lucas, 1997; Porfeli & Skorikov, in press). Career decision self-efficacy is defined as having confidence in oneself to make decisions about a career on the basis of information about the self, goals, and career options (Betz, Klein, & Taylor, 1996). Career decision self-efficacy includes the following dimensions: (a) accurate self-appraisal (being realistic about one’s skills, abilities, strengths), (b) problem solving (ability to deal with problems related to career decisions), (c) planning (having a plan for ways to obtain career goals), goal selection (having goals), and (d) gathering occupational information (seeking information about occupations available). These dimensions reflect aspects of career decision making that are particularly important for making career decisions on the basis of exploration of the self and careers available (Betz et al.). Studies have suggested that career decision self-efficacy is associated positively with career identity evaluation (Brown & Lavish; Lucas; Porfeli & Skorikov) and work commitment (Chung). For example, in a sample of university students, Lucas found that career de-


184


cision self-efficacy was associated with career decidedness and career exploration, and these associations were similar for men and women. Likewise, in another study of undergraduate college students, career decision self-efficacy predicted career commitment (i.e., career giving meaning to one’s life) for both men and women (Chung). Also, in a longitudinal study of high school students, Porfeli and Skorikov found that linear change in, and the average score of, career confidence was associated with linear change in, and the average score of, career exploration in depth (specific career exploration). Career indecision, which is highly associated with career decision self-efficacy (e.g., Osipow & Gati, 1998), also was shown to be associated negatively with career identity commitment in a sample of Australian high school students (Creed & Patton, 2003). On the basis of the extant literature, we predicted that career decision self-efficacy would be positively associated with the career identity evaluation process, and there would be no gender differences in the association of career decision self-efficacy and career identity evaluation.

PARENTAL SUPPORT FOR CAREER Well before they leave for college, children receive messages from their parents regarding how they should think about their future careers. Research has shown that parental support for career (Alliman-Brissett, Turner, & Skovholt, 2004; Berrios-Allison, 2005) as well as general support from parents (Constantine, Wallace, & Kindaichi, 2005; Leal-Muniz & Constantine, 2005; Lucas, 1997) are positively associated with identity commitment and career decision-making confidence in both high school and college samples. Leal-Muniz and Constantine (2005) found that perceived parental support positively predicted career identity commitment and negatively predicted the tendency to foreclose prematurely on career options in a sample of Mexican American college students. In samples of high school sophomores and seniors (Sartor & Youniss, 2002) and college students (Berrios-Allison, 2005) general parental support and identity commitment were positively associated. Parental support in the area of career has been found to be positively associated with career decision self-efficacy and career choice certainty in samples of early adolescents (Alliman-Brissett et al., 2004) and high school juniors and seniors (Constantine et al., 2005). Alliman-Brissett et al. (2004) examined four dimensions of parental support for career: (a) career-related modeling (exposure to parental work role), (b) verbal encouragement (promoting participation in educational and career-related activities), (c) instrumental assistance (guiding educational and career decisions) and (d) emotional support (e.g., talking with the child about his or her goals). They found that the different types of parental support for career predicted career decision self-efficacy for African American men and women. For men, career-related modeling was the best predictor of career decision self-efficacy, whereas for women, emotional sup-



185

port was the best predictor of career decision self-efficacy. These results suggest that there may be gender differences in the association between parental support for career and career decisions self-efficacy. Concerning gender differences, Sartor and Youniss (2002) also found that the association between parental support and identity achievement was stronger for men than for women. Given findings linking parental support and career decision self-efficacy/career decision-making and career identity commitment, it was predicted that parental support for career would be positively associated with career decision making and career identity evaluation for both men and women. The association between parental support and career decision self-efficacy may be stronger for women; whereas, the association between parental support and career identity evaluation may be stronger for men.

WORK EXPERIENCE Having work experiences that are relevant to career choice can provide opportunities for career exploration. Most research that has examined work experience and career decision-making has been conducted on Australian samples. Findings from this research suggest that individuals who had made a career decision were more likely to have had work experience (Creed, Prideaux, & Patton, 2005) and had worked longer than those who had not made a career decision (Earl & Bright, 2003). In one of the few studies of U.S. college students, having work experiences that were perceived as relevant to one’s career choice were associated with being ready to make decisions about career, controlling for participant gender and length of time spent at a job (Ohler, Levinson, & Barker, 1996). Most other research with U.S. samples has examined volume of hours worked by high school students and associations with academic achievement, school misconduct, and drug and alcohol use (for a review, see Zimmerman-Gemback & Mortimer, 2006). Given the paucity of studies that have examined college students’ past and current work experiences and the relevance of these experiences to career identity formation, the present study explored whether perceptions of relevant work experience or the number of jobs a person had held mattered more for explaining confidence to make career decisions and career identity evaluation in an U.S. college sample. In other words, does having experiences with work that one perceives as relevant to one’s future career or does having a variety of work experiences help emerging adults develop confidence to choose their careers and to make stronger commitments to their career identities?

SUMMARY AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES Research has shown that identity commitments are important to individuals’ well-being, adjustment, and satisfaction. Emerging adults’ career decision-mak-


186


ing has been associated with parental support. In turn, both parental support and career decision making have been associated with career identity commitment. Career decision making also has been associated with having work experience. Because having work experiences can serve as a form of career exploration, it was predicted that work experiences would be associated with the career identity evaluation process. The literature has found evidence to suggest that there are no gender differences in the association between career decision self-efficacy and career identity evaluation, but that there are differences in the associations between parental support for career and career decision self-efficacy and career identity evaluation. The purpose of the present study was to investigate career identity evaluation (i.e., career identity exploration in depth and identification with career identity commitment) in college students by examining the associations between career identity evaluation and career decision self-efficacy, parental support for career, and work experience (both perceived relevant work experience and number of jobs held). The aim of the present study was to understand factors that help explain the deepening of career identity commitment. For the present study, work experience was included as an indicator of the dimension of exploration in breadth. Past work experience represents one aspect of exploration in breadth by providing opportunities to consider different aspects of the world of work. Career decision self-efficacy (i.e., the confidence to make career decisions; Betz et al., 1996) was chosen to represent commitment making because college students may not be fully decided about their careers, but they are in the process of making and then exploring their career choices. On the basis of findings of Luyckx et al. (2005, 2006), we predicted that career decision self-efficacy would be positively associated with career identity evaluation. One unique feature of the career decision self-efficacy measure chosen for this study is that it examines self-efficacy to choose a career on the basis of accurate self-appraisal, goals, planning, problem solving, and occupational information available. In other words, as individuals become more confident about making career decisions on the basis of their exploration in breadth, it was expected that they would explore their career choices more in depth and anticipate identifying with their career choices. For the present study, parental support for career was defined as perceived parental support while growing up, before entering college, and career identity evaluation was a combination of exploring career in depth and anticipating identification with career identity commitment. Building on findings in extant literature in the areas of career identity evaluation and career decision self-efficacy/making, the present study had the following objectives (see Figure 1 for the hypothesized model): 1. To test a model in which (a) parental support for career and work experience predicted career decision self-efficacy and (b) parental support for ca-



187

FIGURE 1 Hypothesized model predicting career identity evaluation (aperceived relevant work experience and number of jobs held will be compared).

reer and work experience and career decision self-efficacy predicted career identity evaluation. 2. To test the importance of number of jobs held and perceptions of relevant work experience in predicting career decision self-efficacy and career identity evaluation. 3. To explore gender differences in the hypothesized model.

METHOD Sample and Procedures Data were collected from students attending a land grant, 4-year university in the Southeastern United States. They were recruited from large sections of courses on human development and family studies. Participants completed surveys outside of class and received extra credit in exchange for participation. The surveys took approximately 20 to 30 minutes to complete and were returned the next class day (i.e., 2 days later). Of approximately 375 surveys that we distributed, a total of 349 were returned. Of these, 345 were used for analyses (four surveys were completed by individuals older than 25 when the recruitment was specified for those ages 18 to 25). Of the 345 participants (34.2% male, 63.8% female), the majority of students (91.1%) were Caucasian, and ages ranged from 18 to 25 years (M = 20.61, SD = 1.29). The sample consisted of 11.3% freshmen, 34.8% sophomores, 26.4% juniors, and 24.6% seniors (2.9% did not report their undergraduate level). Most participants (85.7%) were raised in two-parent, first marriage families with upper-middle class incomes. Of the participants, 97.7% reported that they were currently seeking a 4-year bachelor’s degree and 2.3% reported that they were currently seeking an “other” type of degree (e.g., 5-year master’s degree).

188



Measures We assessed career identity evaluation using the Utrecht-Management of Identity Commitments Scale (Crocetti, Rubini, & Meeus, 2008). The Utrecht-Management of Identity Commitments Scale assesses identification with commitment (five items), exploration in depth (five items), and reconsideration of commitment (three items). In the present study, we used the identification-with-commitment and exploration-in-depth subscales. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (completely untrue) to 5 (completely true). Higher scores yield greater identification with commitment and greater exploration in depth. Items were adjusted to refer to the career domain. Because of the design of the study, items also were adjusted to assess anticipated identification with career identity commitment (e.g., “My career will give me certainty in life”) because participants had not fully entered their occupational careers. The exploration-in-depth items were worded in present tense (e.g., “I think a lot about my career).” Internal consistency in two different samples for identification with commitment (as = .89 and .93) and for exploration in depth (as = .84 and .89) have been good (Crocetti et al., 2008). The two scales served as indicators of the latent factor, career identity evaluation. In the present study, reliability was .87 for identification with career identity commitment and .83 for career identity exploration in depth. We measured career decision self-efficacy using the Career Decision Self-Efficacy Short Form (Betz et al., 1996), which consists of 25 items that are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (no confidence at all) to 5 (complete confidence). Higher scores indicate higher confidence in dealing with career-related tasks. There are five subscales containing five items each: accurate self-appraisal (“Choose a major or career that will fit your interests”), gathering occupational information (“Identify employers, firms, and institutions relevant to your career possibilities”), goal selection (“Decide what you value most in an occupation“), making plans (“Make a plan of your goals for the next five years”), and problem solving (“Change majors if you did not like your first choice”). Internal consistency for the total scale has been found to be .94 (Betz et al.) and has ranged between .95 and .97 (Gloria & Hird, 1999). Internal consistency for the subscales has been demonstrated, and construct validity has been supported in previous studies (see Taylor & Betz, 1983). For the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .74 for occupational information, .80 for goal selection, .77 for planning, .75 for problem solving, and .75 for accurate self-appraisal. These five subscales served as indicators for the latent factor of career decision self-efficacy. We assessed parental support for career using the four subscales of the Career-Related Parent Support Scale (Turner, Alliman-Brissett, Lapan, Udipi, & Erugun, 2003): instrumental assistance (e.g., help and guidance about educational/ career-related decisions and tasks), career-related modeling (e.g., exposure to parental work environment and/or work role), verbal encouragement (e.g., encour-



189

agement and expectations to participate in activities that help accomplish educational/career goals), and emotional support (e.g., talking about child’s interests and educational/career goals). The subscales consist of seven items except the verbal encouragement subscale, which has six items. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Internal consistency estimates ranged from .78 to .85, and good test–retest reliability over a 2-week period has been demonstrated (Turner et al.). For the present study, internal consistency estimates were .81 for instrumental assistance, .78 for career-related modeling, .89 for verbal encouragement, and .85 for emotional support. Items were asked in retrospect with the prompt, “Thinking about growing up in your family of origin’s home, answer the following questions.” These four subscales served as indicators for the latent factor of parental support for career. We assessed work experience by adapting a portion of the Work Status Questionnaire (Nurmi & Salmela-Aro, 1995), which was designed to determine how much a job is commensurate with one’s education, after graduating from college. The portion of the Work Status Questionnaire included in the present study asked participants to write down all the jobs they had had, including internships and volunteer work. For each job, they were asked to evaluate the extent to which it was a job that was commensurate with their earlier education, on a 3-point scale, with “0” representing no, “1” representing to some extent, and “2” representing yes. For the present study, this question was adapted by asking participants to evaluate the extent to which the skills learned/used at each job were relevant for their career choice on a 3-point scale, with “0” representing not relevant, “1” representing somewhat relevant, and “2” representing relevant. We calculated relevant work experience scores by taking the mean of all work experience relevance ratings; higher scores indicated more relevant work experience. We calculated number of jobs by summing the number of jobs participants reported having.

RESULTS Preliminary Analyses Before testing the study hypotheses, we calculated the means and standard deviations (see Table 1). The sample was relatively high in levels of identification with commitment, exploration in depth, career decision self-efficacy, and parental support for career. On average, participants had jobs that were somewhat relevant with their anticipated careers and the average of number of jobs held was 2.58 (SD = 1.71). We conducted independent samples t tests to test for gender differences for the mean levels of the variables in the present study. Results revealed that there were significant gender differences on all variables except identification with career

190


TABLE 1 Means and Standard Deviations Full sample


Variable Relevant work experience*** Number of jobs*** Identification with career identity commitment Exploration in depth Occupational information** Goal selection Planning Problem solving Self-appraisal* Instrumental assistance*** Career-related modeling*** Verbal encouragement*** Emotional support***

Male

Female

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

1.01 2.58 4.10 3.96 4.01 3.82 3.88 3.71 3.97 3.90 4.19 4.45 3.84

0.69 1.71 0.67 0.75 0.61 0.63 0.65 0.64 0.57 0.74 0.78 0.63 0.80

0.83 2.05 4.09 3.87 3.88 3.77 3.79 3.63 3.88 3.64 3.96 4.15 3.54

0.70 1.54 0.68 0.74 0.64 0.62 0.68 0.69 0.54 0.76 0.79 0.75 0.79

1.10 2.86 4.10 4.01 4.08 3.85 3.93 3.78 4.01 4.03 4.31 4.61 3.99

0.66 1.74 0.67 0.75 0.70 0.64 0.62 0.62 0.56 0.70 0.74 0.49 0.77

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001; indicates significant gender differences

identity commitment, career identity exploration in depth, and three subscales of the Career Decision Self-Efficacy Short Form (i.e., goal selection, planning, and problem solving; see Table 1). Although men and women differed in their mean levels for many of the variables in the hypothesized model, what remains a question is whether gender moderates the associations among the variables. Therefore, we examined gender differences using multiple group analysis when testing the hypothesized models. We also examined age differences using a one-way analysis of variance, and participants were significantly different in their number of jobs held depending on age. The effect of age was controlled by residualizing the number of jobs on age. Bivariate Associations Examination of the zero-order correlations (see Table 2) indicated that the hypothesized relations were supported with the exception of the association between perceived relevant work experience and the indicators of career identity evaluation. Furthermore, relevant work experience only correlated significantly with two of the career decision self-efficacy subscales (i.e., planning and self-appraisal). Measurement Model We tested a measurement model for the latent variables using structural equation modeling in AMOS 16.0 (Arbuckle, 2007). For missing data, AMOS uses maxi-

191

— .24*** .09 .09 .07 .09 .20*** .08 .16** .07 .10 .03 .05

— .13* .15** .12* .13* .19*** .01 .17** .00 .05 .06 .03

2

— .24*** .24*** .22*** .25*** .19*** .26*** .08 .17** .12* .15**

3

Note. Career Identity Evaluation: items 3–4 Career Decision Self-Efficacy: items 5–9 Parental Support for Career: items 10–13 *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

1. Work Relevance 2. Number of Jobs 3. Ident. w/Com. 4. Explor. in Depth 5. Occup. Info. 6. Goal Selection 7. Planning 8. Problem Solving 9. Self-appraisal 10. Instr. Assistance 11. Career Modeling 12. Verbal Enc. 13. Emotional Sup.

1

— .35*** .22*** .37*** .28*** .29*** .21*** .28*** .17** .24***

4

— .61*** .69*** .58*** .62*** .19*** .32*** .29*** .24***

5

— .65*** .63*** .71*** .22*** .29*** .21*** .18***

6

TABLE 2 Correlations (N = 345)

— .72*** .70*** .25*** .36*** .27*** .23***

7

— .71*** .27*** .30*** .24*** .23***

8

— .27*** .23*** .29*** .19***

9


— .53*** .60*** .68***

10

— .53*** .55***

11

— .56***

12


192


mum likelihood estimation. Several indicators of the fit of the model to the data were used. If the c2 is nonsignificant, this indicates that there is a good fit; however, c2 is sensitive to sample size and is likely to be significant. Other fit indices we examined were the chi-square/df, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and the comparative fit index (CFI). For the chi-square/df, values lower than 3 are acceptable (Byrne, 2001, p. 81). For the TLI and CFI, values between .90 and .95 reflect acceptable fit, and values greater than .95 reflect good fit (Bentler, 1990; Bollen, 1989). Last, we used the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) to estimate the lack of fit in the model compared with a saturated model. An RMSEA < .08 indicates an acceptable fit; good fit is indicated by an RMSEA < .05 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Byrne, 2001). Confirmatory factor analysis results showed that the factors loaded as expected (see Table 3). Significant, positive correlations (p < .001) also were found among the latent constructs (see Table 4). Although the chi-square was significant, c2(41) TABLE 3 Factor Loadings for the Measurement Model Variable

Factor 1

1. Parental support for career Emotional support Verbal encouragement Career-related modeling Instrumental assistance 2. Career decision self-efficacy Accurate self-appraisal Problem solving Planning Goal selection Gathering occupational information 3. Career identity evaluation Identification with career identity commitment Career identity exploration in depth

Factor 2

Factor 3

.78*** .67*** .66*** .80*** .85*** .81*** .85*** .80*** .75*** .41*** .56***

***p < .001.

TABLE 4 Factor Correlations Variable 1. Parental support for career 2. Career decision self-efficacy 3. Career identity evaluation ***p < .001.

1

2

— .37*** .46***

— .68***


193

= 87.14, p < .001; c2/df = 2.13, the TLI (.96), CFI (.97), and RMSEA (.06, p = .23) all indicated that the model fit the data adequately.


Hypothesis Testing Two models were fit using structural equation modeling. The first model contained perceived relevant work experience, and the second contained number of jobs held. Results revealed that in the first model, relevant work experience was associated neither with career decision self-efficacy nor with career identity evaluation. In this model, all other paths were significant (see Figure 2). Although the chi-square was significant, c2(50) = 97.84, p < .001, the c2/df = (1.96), the TLI (.96), CFI (.97), and RMSEA (.05, p = .37) all indicated that the model fit the data well. Next, the second model containing number of jobs held was fit. In this model, all paths were significant, including the paths from number of jobs held to career identity evaluation and career decision self-efficacy (Figure 3). Although the chi-square was significant, c2(50) = 93.53, p < .001), the c2/df = (1.87), the TLI (.97), CFI (.98), and RMSEA (.05, p = .47) all indicated that the model fit the data well. These fit indices suggested a slightly better fit than the model containing relevant work experience; in addition, number of jobs was a significant predictor of the identity process variables, whereas perceived relevance of work experience was not. Therefore, results indicated that number of jobs was a better predictor of career decision self-efficacy and career identity evaluation than was perceived relevant work experience.

Gender Differences The present study aimed to test gender differences in the hypothesized model. First, we examined gender differences in the measurement model. Results from multiple group analyses using a delta chi-square test in which measurement mod-

FIGURE 2 Final model predicting career identity evaluation with perceived relevant work experience (values are standardized path coefficients; *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001).


194


FIGURE 3 Final model predicting career identity evaluation with number of jobs (values are standardized path coefficients; *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001).

els were compared showed that for women, identification with career identity commitment loaded significantly higher as an indicator of career identity evaluation than it did for men (path coefficient for men = .38, p < .001; path coefficient for women = .46, p < .001). When the hypothesized model was compared for men and women, multiple group analyses showed that there were no hypothesized paths in the model that were significantly different for men and women. Therefore, results suggested that identification with career identity commitment may be a stronger indicator of career identity evaluation for women than for men. However, the structural associations among the variables in the model are similar for men and women.

DISCUSSION The findings of the present study showed that parental support for career and number of jobs held predicted career decision self-efficacy and career identity evaluation. Career decision self-efficacy also predicted career identity evaluation. Although mean differences for these variables were found for men and women, the strength of associations among the variables in the model did not differ by gender. The present study adds to existing literature in many important ways. The first is that the study’s conceptualization of career identity was based on the Luyckx et al. (2006) identity process model. The Luyckx et al. (2006) conceptualization permits assessment of career identity in terms of the commitment formation and evaluation processes. This helps address the short-comings of measures that do not distinguish between career identity foreclosure and achievement (Skorikov & Vondracek, 2007). Luyckx et al. (2005) found that the achieved status had the highest levels of identification with commitment and exploration in depth; whereas the foreclosed status had significantly lower levels of identification with commitment and exploration in depth. The findings of the



195

present study suggested that career decision self-efficacy is positively associated with the achieved identity status given that on average, individuals with greater levels of career decision self-efficacy also had greater levels of career identity exploration in depth and identification with career identity commitment. Although career decision self-efficacy is not the same as career commitment making, it is moderately associated with career indecision (r = –.33, p < .001; Creed, Patton, & Prideaux, 2006), and in the present study, career decision self-efficacy was associated positively with the deepening of one’s career identity commitments, consistent with the conceptual model of Luyckx et al. (2006). These results indicate that career decision self-efficacy is important for the internalization of one’s career choice while in college. The second contribution of the present study was the testing of which type of work experience (perceived relevant work experience or number of jobs) was a better predictor of career decision self-efficacy and career identity evaluation. Perceived relevant work experience has been assessed very little in U.S. samples (see Ohler et al., 1996). In the present study, perceived relevant work experience was not associated with career identity evaluation or career decision self-efficacy. This may be because this sample had only moderate levels of perceived relevant work experience across jobs held. Most work experiences available to college-age youth without college degrees are low skill (Hamilton & Hamilton, 2005), which makes the work experiences less likely to be relevant to their future careers. Alternately, it may be difficult to assess whether jobs offer relevant work experience for one’s current career choice until after one has gained additional experience within one’s chosen career. However, number of jobs was significantly and positively associated with career identity evaluation and career decision self-efficacy. Accumulating more job experiences was associated with greater career decision self-efficacy and career identity evaluation. Having assumed a number of different jobs could be considered work role experimentation, which is a type of career exploration in breadth. If this is the case, these results suggest that previous career exploration in breadth would be positively associated with having confidence to make career decisions and the deepening of career commitments. Given that most of the work experience the individuals reported in this study was done previous to the time when data were collected, the results suggest that previous career exploration in breadth may affect current career decision self-efficacy and career identity evaluation over time. It may be important, therefore, for youth to gain diverse work experiences before leaving high school and during the period of emerging adulthood in order to promote career decision making and career identity development. The third contribution of the present study was the use of structural equation modeling to examine contextual influences on career identity development (i.e., work experiences and parental support for career) using three indicators of career identity development (career decision self-efficacy, career identity exploration in


196


depth, and identification with career identity commitment). The use of structural equation modeling reduces error that is present in multiple regression analysis by simultaneously estimating all parameters and using multiple observed indicators to represent one construct in which the error is estimated separately from the true scores (Bollen, 1989). To our knowledge, this is the first study to test an association between career decision self-efficacy and career identity evaluation. Although Porfeli and Skorikov (in press) found associations between changes in career confidence and exploration in depth, they did not examine associations between career confidence and career identity evaluation (their study did not include identification with career identity commitment). When the hypothesized model was tested, significant associations were found that are consistent with the literature reviewed. Consistent with past literature (Alliman-Brissett et al., 2004; Constantine et al., 2005; Hargrove, Creagh, & Burgess, 2002; Leal-Muniz & Constantine, 2005; Lucas, 1997), parental support for career was important for both career identity evaluation and career decision self-efficacy. Also consistent with what past research has suggested, career decision self-efficacy was significantly associated with career identity evaluation (Brown & Lavish, 2006; Chung, 2002; Creed & Patton, 2003; Lucas). The significant effect of parental support for career on both career decision self-efficacy and career identity evaluation suggests that parental support for career affects career identity evaluation both directly and indirectly through its effect on career decision self-efficacy; however, tests for mediation using longitudinal data should be conducted. Mediation of parental support for career and career identity evaluation through career decision self-efficacy seems plausible, given that parental support for career in the present study referred to previous parental support for career while participants were growing up, and identification with career identity commitment was anticipated identification with career since participants were not yet fully occupying their vocational careers. Last, the present study assessed gender differences in the measurement and structural models. Men and women had significant mean differences on most of the variables in the model, and the measurement model showed for college women, that identification with career identity commitment may be more important in the career identity evaluation process than it is for men. However, men and women did not differ in the strength of the associations among the other variables in the model. Women more than men may need to consciously make career a priority for their identities in order to manage obstacles and competing demands (Friedman & Weissbrod, 2005; Grandey, Cordeiro, & Crouter, 2005; Matula, Huston, & Grotevant, 1992), however, the process by which men and women form and strengthen their career identities appears to be similar. The present study had several limitations. The first limitation was the lack of diversity within the sample. The sample was primarily Caucasian, middle class, and two-thirds female, limiting the generalizability of the results. Another limitation was that the majority of the sample consisted of individuals majoring in humani-


197

ties. More science and business majors should be included to increase the generalizability of the findings. A final limitation is the retrospective and speculative nature of the study. To test for mediation that was suggested in the present study, the model should be tested longitudinally, starting before college while participants are living with their parents and then following participants through college and into their career roles.


Conclusions and Future Directions The findings from the present study support extant research and add to it in several important ways. The findings are consistent with and build on previous work indicating that parental support and career decision self-efficacy are important for career identity evaluation. This study adds to the literature by examining career identity in a way suggestive of process and provides support for the Luyckx et al. (2006) framework. The present study investigated linkages between current career decision self-efficacy and the extent to which individuals were engaged in career identity evaluation as indicated by the degree to which they were exploring their career identities in depth and the degree to which they anticipated identification with career identity commitment. The career identity evaluation outcome is not a final position but indicative of a location in an ongoing process that includes both the exploration of, and identification with, one’s chosen career. Such an ongoing process would be expected given the age of the participants and their current context (i.e., college). Also, when assessing career identity development in future studies, other contextual factors, such as perceived occupational opportunities available, should be examined, given the economic downturn and rising unemployment rate in the United States. The present study also showed that rather than perceived relevance of work experiences to one’s anticipated career, number of jobs was predictive of both career decision self-efficacy and career identity evaluation. This suggests that gaining work experiences before choosing a career may serve as a form of career exploration in breadth, in which youth assume different roles in different jobs, and this helps them narrow down what they do and do not want to do for their future careers. Because the majority of studies that have examined the areas of career decision-making related processes, parental influences, and career identity have focused on 4-year college and university samples, it will be important for future research to examine career identity development in other populations, such as 2-year college students and individuals who do not attend college after high school. The present findings provide valuable future directions for the study of career identity development. For example, findings suggest that parental support for career during childhood and adolescence is important for both career decision self-efficacy and career identity evaluation. This information reinforces the importance of parental

198



involvement in the career identity development processes of youth. In addition, the positive association between career decision self-efficacy and career identity evaluation is meaningful for career counselors in their practice with college students because it indicates that increasing career decision self-efficacy may be equivalent to increasing decision-making ability. Rather than only focusing on which career a student should choose, counselors also should promote their clients’ self-efficacy to engage in accurate self-appraisal, gathering occupational information, problem solving, selecting goals, and planning.

REFERENCES Adams, G. R., Bennion, L., & Huh, K. (1989). Objective measure of ego identity status: A reference manual (2nd ed.). Logan: Utah State University. Alliman-Brisset, A. E., Turner, S. L., & Skovholt, T. M. (2004). Parent support and African American adolescents’ career self-efficacy. Professional School Counseling, 7, 124–132. Arbuckle, J. L. (2007). Amos 16.0 user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS. Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Fit indexes, Lagrange multipliers, constraint changes and incomplete data in structural models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 163–172. Berrios-Allison, A. C. (2005). Family influences on college students’ occupational identity. Journal of Career Assessment, 13, 233–247. Berzonsky, M. D. (2003). Identity style and well-being: Does commitment matter? Identity, 3, 131–142. Betz, N. E., Klein, K., & Taylor, K. M. (1996). Evaluation of a short form of the Career Decision-Making Self-efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 47–57. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley-Interscience. Bosma, H. A. (1985). Identity development in adolescents: Coping with commitments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, The Netherlands. Brown, C., & Lavish, L. A. (2006). Career assessment with Native Americans: Role salience and career decision-making self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 116–129. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen and J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Chung, Y. B. (2002). Career decision-making self-efficacy and career commitment: Gender and ethnic differences among college students. Journal of Career Development, 28, 277–284. Constantine, M. G., Wallace, B. C., & Kindaichi, M. M. (2005). Examining contextual factors in the career decision status of African American adolescents. Journal of Career Assessment, 13, 307–319. Côté, J. E. (2006). Young adulthood as an institutionalized moratorium: Risks and benefits to identity formation. In J. J. Arnett & J. L. Tanner (Eds.), Young adulthood in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 85–116). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Creed, P., & Patton, W. (2003). Predicting two components of career maturity in school-based adolescents. Journal of Career Development, 29, 277–290. Creed, P., Patton, W., & Prideaux, L. (2006). Causal relationship between career indecision and career decision-making self-efficacy: A longitudinal cross-lagged analysis. Journal of Career Development, 33, 47–65.



199

Creed, P., Prideaux, L., & Patton, W. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of career decisional states in adolescence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 397–412. Crocetti, E., Rubini, M., & Meeus, W. (2008). Capturing the dynamics of identity formation in various ethnic groups: Development and validation of a three-dimensional model. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 207–222. Earl, J. K., & Bright, J. E. H. (2003). Undergraduate level, age, volume and pattern of work as predictors of career decision status. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55, 83–88. Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton. Friedman, S. R., & Weissbrod, C. S. (2005). Work and family commitment and decision-making status among emerging adults. Sex Roles, 53, 317–325. Gloria, A. M., & Hird, J. S. (1999). Influences of ethnic and nonethnic variables on the career decision-making self-efficacy of college students. Career Development Quarterly, 48, 157–174. Grandey, A. A., Cordeiro, B. L., & Crouter, A. C. (2005). A longitudinal and multi-source test of the work–family conflict and job satisfaction relationship. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 305–323. Hamilton, S. F., & Hamilton, M. A. (2006). School, work, and emerging adulthood. In J. J. Arnett & J. L. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging adulthood in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 257–277). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hargrove, B. K., Creagh, M. G., & Burgess, B. L. (2002). Family interaction patterns as predictors of vocational identity and career-decision making self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 185–201. Holland, J. L., Daiger, D. C., & Power, P. G. (1980). My vocational situation. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Kidd, J. M., & Green, F. (2006). The careers of research scientists: Predictors of three dimensions of career commitment and intention to leave science. Personnel Review, 35, 229–251. Kunnen, E. S., Sappa, V., van Geert, P. L. C., & Bonica, L. (2008). The shapes of commitment development in emerging adulthood. Journal of Adult Development, 15, 113–131. Leal-Muniz, V., & Constantine, M. G. (2005). Predictors of the career commitment process in Mexican American college students. Journal of Career Assessment, 13, 204–215. Lucas, M. (1997). Identity development, career development, and psychological separation from parents: Similarities and differences between men and women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 123–132. Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., & Soenens, B. (2005). Identity statuses based on 4 rather than 2 identity dimensions: Extending and refining Marcia’s paradigm. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 605–618. Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., & Soenens, B. (2006). A developmental contextual perspective on identity construction in emerging adulthood: Change dynamics in commitment formation and commitment evaluation. Developmental Psychology, 42, 366–380. Marcia, J. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551–558. Matula, K. E., Huston, T. L., & Grotevant, H. D. (1992). Identity and dating commitment among women and men in college. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 339–356. Meeus, W., Iedema, J., Helsen, M., & Vollebergh, W. (1999). Patterns of adolescent identity development: Review of literature and longitudinal analysis. Developmental Review, 19, 419–461. Meeus, W., Iedema, J., Maassen, G., & Engels, R. (2005). Separation-individuation revisited: On the interplay of parent–adolescent relations, identity and emotional adjustment in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 28, 89–106. Nurmi, J.-E., & Salmela-Aro, K. (1995). Work Status Questionnaire. Helsinki : University of Helsinki. Ohler, D. L., Levinson, E. M., & Barker, W. F. (1996). Career maturity in college students with learning disabilities. Career Development Quarterly, 44, 278–288.


200


Osipow, S. H., & Gati, I. (1998). Construct and concurrent validity of the career decision-making difficulties questionnaire. Journal of Career Assessment, 6, 347–364. Perrone, K. M., Ægisdóttir, S., Webb, L. K. & Blalock, R. H. (2006). Work–family interface: Commitment, conflict, coping, and satisfaction. Journal of Career Development, 32, 286–300. Porfeli, E., & Skorikov, V. B. (2010). Specific and diversive career exploration during late adolescence. Journal of Career Assessment, 18, 46–58. Sartor, C. E., & Youniss, J. (2002). The relationship between positive parental involvement and identity achievement during adolescence. Adolescence, 37, 221–234. Skorkiov, V. B., & Vondracek, F. W. (2007). Vocational identity. In V. Skorikov & W. Patton (Eds.), Career development in childhood and adolescence (pp. 143–168). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Stephen, J., Fraser, E., & Marcia, J. E. (1992). Moratorium-achievement (Mama) cycles in lifespan identity development: Value orientations and reasoning system correlates. Journal of Adolescence, 15, 283–300. Taylor, K. M., & Betz, N. E. (1983). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the understanding and treatment of career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 63–81. Turner, S. L., Alliman-Brissett, A., Lapan, R. T., Udipi, S., & Ergun, D. (2003). Career-related parent-support scale. Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development, 56, 44–55. Vondracek, F. W. (1995). Vocational identity across the life-span: A developmental-contextual perspective on achieving self-realization through vocational careers. Man and Work, 6, 93–85. Waterman, A. S. (1990). Personal expressiveness: Philosophical and psychological foundations. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 11, 47–74. Zimmerman-Gemback, M. J., & Mortimer, J. T. (2006). Adolescent work, vocational development, and education. Review of Educational Research, 76, 537–566.