FAMILY OF ORIGIN INFLUENCES ON THE CAREER DEVELOPMENT OF
YOUNG ADULTS: THE RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF
SOCIAL STATUS AND FAMILY SUPPORT
by
JENNIFER R. METHENY
A DISSERTATION
Presented to the Department of Counseling Psychology
and Human Services
and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
September 2009
11
University of Oregon Graduate School
Confirmation of Approval and Acceptance of Dissertation prepared by:
Jennifer Metheny
Title:
"FAMILY OF ORIGIN INFLUENCES ON THE CAREER DEVELOPMENT OF YOUNG
ADULTS: THE RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF SOCIAL STATUS AND FAMILY
SUPPORT"
This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree in the Department of Counseling Psychology and Human Services by:
Ellen McWhirter, Chairperson, Counseling Psychology and Human Services
Krista Chronister, Member, Counseling Psychology and Human Services
Christopher Murray, Member, Special Education and Clinical Sciences
Jocelyn Hollander, Outside Member, Sociology
and Richard Linton, Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies/Dean of the Graduate
School for the University of Oregon.
September 5, 2009
Original approval signatures are on file with the Graduate School and the University of Oregon
Libraries.
© 2009 Jennifer R. Metheny
111
IV
An Abstract of the Dissertation of
Jennifer R. Metheny for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the Department of Counseling Psychology and Human Services
to be taken September 2009
Title: FAMILY OF ORIGIN INFLUENCES ON THE CAREER DEVELOPMENT OF
YOUNG ADULTS: THE RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF SOCIAL STATUS
AND FAMILY SUPPORT
Approved: _
Ellen H. McWhirter
The family of origin plays a pivotal role in the career development process. The
purpose of this study was to better understand the role of both family social status and
family process (e.g., parenting behaviors) in the career development of young adults.
Social status was measured using both a traditional, objective index (Socioeconomic
Index) and a more recently developed subjective measure (Differential Status Identity
Scale). Family process was examined using the variables of perceived and enacted family
support. A model capturing the relationship among these variables was proposed based
upon Social Cognitive Career Theory, with career decision-making self-efficacy and
career-related outcome expectations serving as the social-cognitive outcome variables. A
path analysis was conducted to explore the fit of the model and the relative contributions
vof the status and process variables to the career development outcomes. Participants were
279 male and female undergraduate students, aged 18 to 22 years, from 2- or 4-year
community colleges, colleges, and universities. The sample was randomly split into a
calibration sample and a validation sample. The hypothesized model was modified based
on results with the calibration sample, and a multiple group analysis was used to test for
model invariance across the two groups for the revised model. The results of this study
suggest that both family of origin social status and family support influence career
development outcomes. Specifically, results indicated that the influence of family status,
enacted family support, and perceived family support on outcomes was primarily
indirect; these variables operated through subjective status. Results also indicated a
moderate, direct relationship between subjective social status and career decision-making
self-efficacy. The findings suggest that prevention and intervention efforts should focus
on both increasing family support and increasing access to the other types of resources
implicated in shaping subjective status. Additional implications for both research and
practice are discussed.
VI
CURRICULUM VITAE
NAME OF AUTHOR: Jennifer R. Metheny
GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
University of Oregon, Eugene
Rice University, Houston, Texas
DEGREES AWARDED:
Doctor of Philosophy in Counseling Psychology, September 2009, University of
Oregon
Master of Science in Counseling Psychology, September 2006, University of
Oregon
Bachelor of Arts in Psychology and Sociology, May 1997, Rice University
AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST:
Social Class Identity Development
Career Development of Young Adults
Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Predoctoral intern, Counseling & Psychological Services, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, 2008-2009
Director, University of Oregon Crisis Center, Eugene, 2007-2008
Counselor, University Counseling & Testing Center, University of Oregon,
Eugene,2005-2008
Assistant Director, University of Oregon Crisis Center, Eugene, 2005-2007
Skills trainer, OSLC Community Programs, Eugene, 2004-2006
VB
GRANTS, AWARDS AND HONORS:
National Career Development Association Dissertation Award, 2008
Graduate Teaching Fellowship, University of Oregon, 2003-2008
PUBLICATIONS:
Metheny, J., McWhirter, E. H., & O'Neil, M. (2008). Measuring perceived teacher
support and its influence on adolescent career development. Journal ofCareer
Assessment, 16,218-237.
Lindstrom, L. E., Doren, R, Metheny, J. R., Johnson, P., & Zane, C. (2007). Family
structure and process: Influences on transition outcomes for youth with learning
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 73,348-366.
V111
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express sincere appreciation to my advisor, Dr. Ellen H. McWhirter, for
her guidance, support, and encouragement in completing this dissertation. Her careful
review of the many versions of this manuscript and helpful suggestions were invaluable. I
would also like to thank the members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Krista
Chronister, Dr. Jocelyn Hollander, and Dr. Christopher Murray, for their input and
support. I very much appreciate the hard work of my two undergraduate research
assistants, Joshua Pritikin and Steven White, who volunteered to assist me with the
coding for this. project. Finally, I wish to thank those who took the time to complete my
questionnaire. This research was supported in part by an award from the National Career
Development Association.
IX
To my partner Chris, who has provided endless support; to my parents, who helped to
shape my own career development process; and to Dr. Chandler Davidson, who provided
the initial seed of inspiration for my pursuit of this area of research.
xTABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION .. 1
II. LITERATURE REVIEW 6
Social Cognitive Career Theory.................................................................... 7
Constructs of Interest 8
Environmental Influences 8
Self-Efficacy Expectations 10
Outcome Expectations 11
Summary 12
Social Capital Theory 12
Social Class 14
Definition and Related Constructs 15
Socioeconomic Status 15
Poverty or Poor 15
Social Status 16
Social Class 16
Social Class as Identity............................................................................ 18
Relationship between Objective and Subjective Status 18
Development of Social Class Awareness 19
Differential Status Identity................................................................ 20
Importance in Career Development 22
Socioeconomic Status 22
Subjective Status 24
Summary 26
Xl
Chapter Page
Family Process 26
Social Support Definition and Types 27
Importance in Career Development 29
Perceived Support 30
Enacted Support 30
Summary 32
Interaction of Status and Process 32
Poole, Langan-Fox, Ciavarella, and Omodei (1991) 33
Penick and Jepsen (1992) 34
Way and Rossmann (1996) 35
Ali, McWhirter, and Chronister (2005) 36
Ali and Saunders (2006) 37
Implications for Future Research 37
Summary 38
Purpose of Study 39
III. METHODS 42
Participants 42
Procedure 43
Measures 44
Person and Family Context Variables 45
Demographic Information and Socioeconomic Status 45
Subjective Social Status 46
Perceived Family Support 49
Enacted Family Support 51
Career-Related Outcome Variables 53
Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy............................................. 53
Career Outcome Expectations 54
XlI
Chapter Page
IV. RESULTS 57
Preliminary Analyses 57
Path Analyses 59
Direct and Indirect Effects........................................................................ 63
Family Support as Moderator 66
V. DISCUSSION 69
Influence of Social Status 70
Family of Origin Socioeconomic Status 70
Subjective Social Status 72
Relative Impact of Objective & Subjective Social Status 74
Influence of Family Support 76
Enacted Family Support 76
Perceived Family Support 78
Strengths & Limitations 79
Implications for Practice 82
Implications for Research 85
Summary & Conclusions 86
APPENDICES 89
A. INFORMED CONSENT 89
B. INSTRU1YIENTS 92
Demographic Questionnaire 93
Differential Status Identity Scale 96
Family Support Measures 100
Career Decision Self-Efficacy - Short Form 103
Vocational Outcome Expectations Scale 104
REFERENCES 105
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Description of Study Constructs and Measures 45
2. Descriptive Statistics, Reliability Coefficients, and Correlations 58
3. Summary of Model-Fit Statistics................................................................... 61
4. Unstandardized Parameter Estimates for Revised ModeL............................ 65
5. Standardized Direct and Indirect Effects for Revised Model........................ 67
6. Summary of Moderation Model-Fit Statistics 68
XIV
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Social cognitive career theory's predicted relationship among variables 8
2. Hypothesized model for study.................. 41
3. Revised model 64
1CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Growing up poor has been linked to a number of negative developmental
outcomes, including lower levels of school achievement, poorer socioemotional
functioning, and increased rates of medical and psychological disorders (APA, 2000;
McLoyd, 1998). Today in the United States, nearly one in five children live in poverty
(National Center for Children in Poverty, 2005), and there is some evidence to suggest
that it has become more difficult to move out of poverty in the past twenty years
(McLoyd, 1998). An individual's choice of career effects social class membership,
making the gateway to social mobility partially (if not mostly) controlled by career
trajectory. Key to intervention efforts is the evidence suggesting that the reverse may be
true as well: social class background affects work choices and behaviors (Brown,
Fukunaga, Umemoto, & Wicker, 1996).
Available research links family socioeconomic status (SES) to a number of career
development variables. Individuals from lower status backgrounds tend to have lower
occupational and educational aspirations (Jacobs, Karen, & McClelland, 1991; Rojewski,
1997; Rojewski & Yang, 1997; Solorzano, 1992). Growing up in a low SES family is
also associated with higher levels of perceived barriers to educational and career
attainment, lower levels of career-related self-efficacy, and lowered expectations for
2educational attainment (Lauver & Jones, 1991; McWhirter, Hackett, & Banda1os, 1998).
These aspirations, expectations, perceived barriers, and self-efficacy levels directly
translate into career-related choices and behaviors. According to the National Center for
Educational Statistics, an opportunity gap remains between low-income and high-income
students (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). Regardless of preparation or qualification
levels, low-income youth are less likely to pursue a college education. Further, low-
income youth may be less prepared for the schoo1-to-work transition, leaving them more
likely to experience negative outcomes such as unemployment (Rojewski & Kim, 2003).
While SES appears to playa key role in the formation of vocational attitudes and
decisions (for reviews, see Brown et al., 1996; Schulenberg, Vondracek, & Crouter,
1984; Whiston & Keller, 2004b), its mechanism of action is still unclear (Brown et al.,
1996; Whiston & Keller, 2004a). Researchers have suggested a host of possible
contributing variables, from child rearing patterns (Roe, 1956; Roe & Lunneborg, 1990)
to a lack of available role models (Shu1enberg et al., 1984), which may be associated with
family SES. In a recent review ofthe literature, Whiston and Keller (2004b) concluded
that family process variables (e.g., family relationships, parental aspirations and
expectations, family support and advocacy) playa more imp0l1ant role in career
development than either family structural variables (e.g., parents' education and
occupation, single parent status) or family background (e.g., social class). Although
current literature has confirmed the importance of each of these family variables in the
career development process, the exact nature and extent of family influences has yet to be
fully understood (B1ustein, Juntunen, & Worthington, 2000; Hargrove, Creagh, &
3Burgess, 2002; Whiston & Keller, 2004b). The deleterious impacts of poverty on child
developmental outcomes - including cognitive functioning, academic achievement, and
socioemotiona1 functioning - have been shown to persist even after controlling for
individual differences in family and parenting behaviors (McLoyd, 1998).
Hindering advances in achieving a better understanding of family influences on
career development is an overall lack of attention to the realities oflow-income persons
on the part of psychologists (Lott, 2002). Career theorists have long noted the potential
effects of social class on the development of vocational interest (e.g., Gottfredson, 1981,
1996; Super, 1953, 1980). Namely that social class restricts or expands the career
options available to certain individuals and that this impacts career choice in conjunction
with personality and developmental experiences. However, as one of a constellation of
interrelated identity variables recognized as having an impact on psychological
development and, more specifically, career development, social class has received
historically less attention in the field of psychology than other similarly recognized
factors such as race and gender (Brown et aI., 1996; Frable, 1997; Whiston & Keller,
2004b). More recently, the status of social class as a "lost" variable in counseling and
vocational psychology research has begun to receive increased attention (Blustein et aI.,
2002; Fouad & Brown, 2000; Heppner & Scott, 2004; Liu et aI., 2004; Liu, Soleck,
Hopps, Dunston, & Pickett, 2004).
Concurrent with the overall lack of attention to the variable, existing research has
failed to utilize a consistent definition of the construct of social class. The term social
class has often been used interchangeably with the terms socioeconomic status (SES) and
4social status (Liu et aI., 2004). A major criticism ofthe existing body of literature in
vocational psychology is that it treats social class as a sociological variable (focusing on
objective measurement of education level, income, and occupational status) instead of a
psychological one (Brown, 2000; Brown et aI., 1996; Liu et aI., 2004). Social class
includes components of socialization and class consciousness, in addition to other
defining valiables of occupation, income, wealth, personal prestige, association, power,
and mobility (Gilbert & Kahn, 1993). In order for psychologists to more fully understand
the psychological effect of social class membership on an individual's development, it
will be necessary to shift the focus of future research (Thompson & Subich, 2007). SES-
related variables (i.e., parental occupation, income, or education level) are not viable foci
of direct intervention for individual vocational psychologists because they require
broader policy shifts aimed at achieving a more equal disttibution of resources. Thus, the
shift to examining the psychological effects of social class is also required before
appropriate interventions can be developed to address the association of lower
socioeconomic status with negative career development outcomes.
In conclusion, the existing body of research into family influences on the career
development process has not fully explored the psychological effects of economic and
social class variables and reflects a lack of consistent definition of such variables and a
lack of attention to the modifiable influence of family process variables. This study
sought to address these deficits in the literature, by examining both objective and
subjective social class on the career development process, and by exploring potential
5mechanisms of action via including family process variables in the analysis of family
influences.
Using social cognitive career theory (SCCT; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994,
2000) and social capital theory (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988) as the base, the career
development outcome variables of career decision-making self efficacy and outcome
expectations were examined. According to SCCT, these two cognitive variables form the
basis for the formation of career interests and goals. SCCT has garnered considerable
empirical support, and research supports self-efficacy and outcome expectations as
important contributors to the career development process for young adults (Lent &
Brown, 2006; Swanson & Gore, 2000).
In the chapter that follows, I summarize SCCT, social capital theory, and define
the constructs of interest for this study. I also review the literature related to social class
influences on development and the literature related to family process variables and
social support as influences on the career development process. Finally, I outline the
hypothesized relationships among constructs used in this study.
6CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
The family of origin has been identified as the most significant influence on
career development (Brown, 2004; Whiston & Keller, 2004b). Families provide the
environment in which work roles, values, expectations, and aspirations are transmitted to
and formed by the child (Vondracek, Lerner, & Schulenberg, 1986). Researchers have
found the family of origin to be an essential part of the context within which career
decisions are made and enacted (Blustein, Phillips, Jobin-Davis, Finkelberg, & Roarke,
1997). A host of family context variables have been found to be related to the vocational
behavior of youth, including socioeconomic status, family structure (e.g., single parent
status), parent occupational and educational attainment, role modeling, support, family
interaction style, and parent expectations for achievement (Penick & Jepsen, 1992;
Whiston & Keller, 2004b). However, as noted in the introduction, most researchers agree
that the exact nature and extent of the influence of the family on the career development
process is yet to be known (Blustein, Juntunen, & Worthington, 2000; Whiston & Keller,
2004b). This study focused on the economic context of the family of origin and family
process variables that may playa role in shaping career outcomes for young adults. The
theoretical base for the study was social cognitive career theory and social capital theory.
------------------------
7
Social Cognitive Career Theory
Social cognitive career theory (SCCT; Lent et aI., 1994, 2000) is one of the most
researched theories in vocational psychology and has received considerable empirical
support for its propositions (Swanson & Gore, 2000; Lent & Brown, 2006). SCCT is
based on Bandura's (1977, 1986) social cognitive theory and attempts to explain the
process by which vocational interests and goals develop and by which these interests and
goals are translated into action. The base of the theory is Bandura's emphasis on the
triadic, dynamic, reciprocal interaction between the person (particularly beliefs or
cognitions), behaviors, and the environment. Central to the theory is the idea of personal
agency - the beliefthat the individual is capable of continual change and that his or her
behaviors have power in the environment. Two important constructs effecting perceived
personal agency are self-efficacy beliefs (i.e., can I do this?) and outcome expectations
(i.e., what will happen when I do this?). The influence of these two constructs can be seen
in three interconnected tenets which are key to the theory and which are displayed in
Figure 1.
The first tenet of SCCT is that career-related learning experiences are shaped by
both personal factors (e.g., intelligence, personality, etc.) and environmental factors (e.g.,
socioeconomic status, racism, etc.; Lent et aI., 1994, 2000). Second, these learning
experiences - particularly the individual's appraisal of these experiences - shape the
person-cognitive variables of self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations. Third, the
individual's self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations influence the development of
career-related interests. Bandura (1986) believed that individuals are more likely to
8engage in behaviors, or in this case, careers, of which they feel capable and from which
they expect positive outcomes. Career-related interests are then translated into goals and
actions in the presence of contextual supports and absence of contextual barriers. Finally,
this process - by which learning experiences effect self-efficacy beliefs and outcome
expectations, and beliefs and expectations affect career-related interests, goals, and
actions - is seen as being life-long. New experiences and choice actions continually
influence beliefs about personal agency, completing the feedback loop.
Proximal Contextual Influences
Person inputs
-predisposition
-gender
-race/ethnicity
-health status
/
Background
Contextual Affordances
Outcome
Expectations
Interests Actions
Figure 1. Social cognitive career theory's predicted relationship among variables.
Constructs ofInterest
Environmental influences. According to this model, environmental factors can
influence the career development process in two ways and can be either objective or
perceived (Lent et aI., 1994, 2000). Background contextual factors shape the learning
9environments to which the individual is exposed, resulting in self-efficacy and outcome
expectations. The authors state that these contextual affordances fonn both the real and
perceived opportunity structure within which career choices are made. Further,
environmental barriers and supports are hypothesized to affect the individual's ability to
follow-through on career-related tasks and can act to constrain or enhance the action
phase of the process. Thus, in tenns of family of origin influences on the career
development process, financial constraints may act to restrict learning opportunities
resulting in lowered self-efficacy and outcome expectations for activities outside of a
narrow range. The individual's perception that their socioeconomic status is low may also
act to inhibit the development of positive or high self-efficacy and outcome expectations.
A high degree of family support for career-related activities and aspirations is theorized
to counteract these potentially negative influences via enhancing cognitive-person
variables.
Relative to other aspects of SCCT, research into hypothesized linkages between
environmental influences and the career development process has been scant (Lent et aI.,
2000). Where it exists, research into the influence of contextual factors has focused on
perceived barriers and restrictions rather than on supportive environmental conditions
(Lent et aI., 2000). As will be reviewed in the section on family of origin influences on
career development, research supports the notion that social support from important
adults has a positive impact on adolescents' career development. Lent et aI. call for more
research in this area, acknowledging its important repercussions for prevention and
intervention efforts.
10
Self-efficacy expectations. Bandura (1986) defines self-efficacy beliefs as
"people's judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action
required to attain designated types of performances" (p. 391). Self-efficacy beliefs are
thus cognitive assessments of abilities in a given area of behavior or functioning.
Theorists in this area stress that self-efficacy cannot be considered a trait but rather is
contextually based and dynamic (Betz & Hackett, 2006; Lent & Brown, 2006). Lent and
Brown outline several ways in which the operation of self-efficacy beliefs has been
operationalized in studies: (a) content or task-specific self-efficacy - appraisals of the
ability to execute a given task; (b) coping efficacy - appraisals of the ability to overcome
or address obstacles; (c) process efficacy - appraisals of the ability to manage a series or
progression of tasks required to complete a given process; and (d) self-regulatory efficacy
- appraisals of the ability to persist in growth-oriented behaviors in the face of negative
circumstances. Thus, there exists a range of specific ways to operationalize self-efficacy
given the domain of interest and the type of efficacy of interest.
Self-efficacy is influenced by four factors: (a) performance accomplishments-
the direct experience of success at performing the behavior; (b) vicarious experiences -
observing others do the behavior; (c) verbal persuasion - other's encouragement; and (d)
physiological responses - arousal or emotional responses (Betz & Hackett, 2006). Again,
in terms of family of origin influences on the career development process, individuals
from a lower social class background may have had less exposure to role models who can
provide vicarious learning experiences associated with professional occupations and may
have been limited in the scope of activities in which they had an opportunity to engage to
11
build a background of perfonnance accomplishments. If family support for career
development was lacking, this would also be expected to lower self-efficacy in this
domain, given a lack of encouragement from important adults. In this study, the focus
was on process efficacy around career decision-making. Additional details related to this
particular type of self-efficacy are provided in the section describing the measure of
career decision-making self-efficacy utilized in the study.
Outcome expectations. Bandura's (1986) concept of outcome expectations
involves the anticipated consequences of a course of action. Like self-efficacy
expectations, outcome expectations are not trait-like, but rather are dynamic and domain
specific (Lent & Brown, 2006). Bandura outlines several types of outcome expectations:
(a) social reactions, (b) physical sensations, and (c) self-evaluations - in each case these
may be either positive, negative, or neutral. Relative to the construct of self-efficacy,
research into the role of outcome expectations in the career development process is
lacking, resulting in a lack of clarity with respect to its role (Fouad & Guillen, 2006).
While self-efficacy beliefs are believed to be the stronger predictor of behavior, outcome
expectations are theorized to provide a unique contribution to the likelihood of attempting
a given behavior. In conditions of oppression, such as those experienced growing up in
poverty, researchers have asserted that outcome expectations would be expected to be
lower and would be expected to have a greater impact on behavior than self-efficacy
expectations (Morrow, Gore, & Campbell, 1996). In this study, the focus was on the
outcomes expected from the career decision-making process. Additional details related to
12
this particular type of outcome expectation are provided in the section describing the
measure of career outcome expectations utilized in the study.
Summary
This study focused on the SCCT components ofbackground contextual
affordances, environmental supports, and the person-cognitive variables of se1f~efficacy
and outcome expectations. Given SCCT's propositions, the hypothesized relationship
between these variables was that favorable background contextual affordances would
result in higher self-efficacy and outcome expectations via learning opportunities and
experiences. It was also hypothesized that the presence of supports in the environment
would mediate this relationship, directly influencing the person-cognitive variables
themselves as well. The existing research supports these hypotheses.
Social Capital Theory
Social Capital Theory is built on the notion that different types of capital, or
resources, contribute to one's ability to achieve a desired outcome. Coleman (1988)
describes the role of capital as "productive, making possible the achievement of certain
ends that in its absence would not be possible" (p. S98). Social capital is one such type of
resource or tool which contributes to the ability to engage in goal-directed action.
With its rise in popularity as a construct in social science research, definitions of
social capital have become less concise (Yang, 2007). As a result, Yang has argued that a
return to Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman's (1988) initial conceptualizations is necessary.
They defined the construct of social capital as resources of the social group which might
13
be used for one's own purposes. These resources may be either tangible (e.g., money) or
abstract (e.g., social influence).
Social capital theory, then, would propose that greater the access to social capital
would result in positive, useful outcomes for the individual. Related to the career
development process, the presence of social capital would be expected to facilitate an
individual's ability to engage in activities that would help move toward desired career
outcomes. Social capital would enhance career development opportunities by providing
important resources, such as job prospects.
In his classic text, The Truly Disadvantaged, Wilson (1987) argued that social
isolation and a lack of social capital - particularly social networks with individuals or
institutions representative of "mainstream" society - result in reduced career
opportunities and reduced mobility for those living in poverty. Wilson examined the
broad societal and economic trends that contributed to the creation of a concentrated
underclass population in urban, city-centers by the early 1980s. He noted that the
resulting concentrated communities of poverty were characterized by high rates of crime,
teenage pregnancy, single-parent families, joblessness, and residential instability. Wilson
asserted that concentration effects were responsible for continuing the cycle of
disadvantage by way of the socialization of and role models provided to youth living in
these neighborhoods. Thus, Wilson highlighted the important impact of social capital on
an individual's opportunity structure.
Other theorists and researchers have also highlighted differences in access to
social capital by social group. Members of a group with lower socioeconomic standing
14
are often part of a network that has fewer and less varied resources available (Lin, 2000).
In contrast, those from high status backgrounds would be expected to have greater access
to social capital and, therefore, a greater ability to achieve desired career-related
outcomes.
This study examines the role of social support as a form of social capital. Given
the propositions of social capital theory, it was hypothesized that greater levels of social
support would be associated with more positive career outcomes. It was also expected
that levels of social support might vary by social status.
Social Class
While psychology has historically been remiss in addressing the influence of
social class on development (Brown et aI., 1996; Frable, 1997; Lott, 2002; Whiston &
Keller, 2004b), there has been a growing recognition of the need for increased research
into the role of social class variables (Fouad & Brown, 2000; Heppner & Scott, 2004; Liu
et aI., 2004; Liu, Soleck, Hopps, Dunston, & Pickett, 2004). Typically the domain of
sociologists, it is important to acknowledge that, as Brown et al. (1996) assert, "social
class is not merely a sociological phenomenon but also a psychological one" (p. 160). As
such, there is a need for psychologists to reconceptualize their treatment of social class
from that of a "nuisance variable," which is addressed as an afterthought in many studies,
to a core intrapsychic one (Liu et aI., 2004). Doing so will allow for greater exploration
of the role of social class context in development and, more specifically, vocational
development.
15
Definition and Related Constructs
In this section, I define social class and the associated constructs which are found
in the sociological and psychological research on the influence of social stratification on
development and behavior. I start with the definitions of socioeconomic status, poverty,
and social status, because the vast majority of existing studies in psychology have
incorporated only these concepts. I then provide a definition of social class and outline its
uniq~e features relative to these other constructs.
Socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic status (SES) is generally considered to be
comprised of occupation, education, income, prestige, power, and lifestyle (House, 1981
as cited in McLoyd, 1998). Thus, it is a multidimensional construct that has been difficult
to measure and define. Researchers vary in their use ofthese different components. For
example, a study by Ryan et ai. (2002) examining the benefits of a child development
program as a function of SES used the following variables to reflect status: employment
status, education level, income per person, owning transportation, mother's age when
first child born, father's presence or absence, marital status, ethnicity, and child's birth-
weight. However, SES is most often measured via some combination of income,
education, and occupational status (Liu et aI., 2004).
Poverty or poor. The designation of living in "poverty" or being "poor" is
sometimes conferred interchangeably. However, the actual use ofthe term poverty
implies a very specific economic and social situation. There typically are two ways that
poverty has been defined and measured in social science research. The first is via the
federal poverty guidelines. These guidelines are used to determine eligibility for services
16
and differ slightly from the poverty threshold which is used to determine poverty status
by the U.S. Census Bureau. According to the 2003 version of the poverty guidelines, a
family of four making $18,400 or less is considered impoverished and eligible for certain
services, including Head Start, Food Stamps, and the National School Lunch Program
(U.S. Department ofHHS, 2003). A second option is the income-to-needs ratio. To
compute the income-to-needs ratio, the pre-tax income of all family members is
aggregated and then divided by the current federal poverty threshold for the given family
size (Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, Yeung, & Smith, 1998). Families with a ratio of one or less
are considered to be living in poverty. This method still relies on the govenunent-defined
guidelines, but researchers are able to avoid limiting their sample to those currently
receiving services.
Social status. Social status is considered a broader term than SES or social class.
It incorporates an individual's other identity and cultural influences (such as gender,
sexual orientation, or disability status) which act to influence collectively the person's
standing in society (Fouad & Brown, 2000). Thus, the term is often used as a "catch all"
construct and may refer to socioeconomic status, social class, social standing (reflecting
privilege or oppression), or some combination thereof.
Social class. Gilbert and Kahn (1993) identify nine variables that, when
considered in conjunction, define and organize the class system in the United States.
They are occupation, income, wealth, personal prestige, association, socialization, power,
class consciousness, and mobility. Thus the definition of social class incorporates and
extends the definition of socioeconomic status. For counseling psychologists, the
17
fundamental difference lies in the inclusion ofsocialization and class consciousness.
First, defined as the process by which children learn the norms, expectations, and "rules"
of society, socialization is critical to the maintenance of a class system (Gilbert & Kahn).
The socialization process is thought to result in the differential attitudes toward and
behaviors around sex, work, authority, education, and leisure activities that have been
found across social classes (Brown et aI., 1996). Second, class consciousness is the
awareness ofposition within a hierarchical social class system and of the resulting
impacts on one's life (Liu et aI., 2004).
The conceptualization of social class as conferring group membership and
resulting in the transmission of cultural values implies that class, like ethnicity or gender,
can be considered an identity variable. As such, social class must be understood to be
dynamic and influential in the development of personal identity (Constantine, 2002;
Fouad & Brown, 2000). The idea of social class as a worldview or identity captures the
similarities in attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that exist between individuals of the same
social status (for instance, around work, leisure, and retirement found by Brown et aI.,
1996), while allowing for individual variation based on differences in socialization
experiences and individual levels of class consciousness. The section that follows
presents findings supporting the notion of social class as a subjective identity or
worldview that develops with age and that may provide a unique contribution to the
understanding of vocational development.
18
Social Class as Identity
Relationship between objective and subjective status. Almost all psychology
research to date has used measures which, in actuality, fail to capture the critical
components of social class outlined above, and are thus more representative of SES. One
exception has been research within the field of health psychology by Nancy Adler and
colleagues. Using an image of a ladder with 10 rungs, respondents are asked to imagine
that the ladder represents U.S. society. Instructions continue by stating that those at the
top of the ladder have the most money, highest education, top jobs, and are the "best off'
and those at the bottom of the ladder have the least money, lowest education, worst jobs,
and are the "worst off' (Adler, Epel, Castellazzo, & Ickovics, 2000). Respondents are
asked to choose the rung that best represents where they are in relation to others in the
U.S. In a series of articles, these researchers have found that subjective status is a more
powerful predictor of health-related outcomes (e.g., self-rated health, heart rate, sleep
latency, cortisol habituation) than objective indices of SES (Adler et aI., 2000; Goodman
et aI., 2001; Ostrove, Adler, Kuppermann, & Washington, 2000).
For adults, responses on the subjective status scale were found to be significantly
related to objective indicators of status (household income, own occupation, partner's
occupation), except for African American women, for whom only household income was
significantly related (Ostrove et aI., 2000). Interestingly, adolescents' placements on the
ladder were only moderately correlated (r = .38,p < .001) with maternal rankings and
weakly correlated with father's education level (r = .21,p < .01) based on a sample of
166 adolescents and their mothers (Goodman et aI., 2001). The authors suggest that this
19
provides evidence that objective and subjective social status can be considered to be
separate elements of social standing. Further, the reliability of responses increased as the
age of the respondents increased (.83 for subjects 15 years of age or older versus .68 for
subjects younger than 15 years of age). The authors attribute this finding to social status
perceptions crystallizing with age (Goodman et a1.).
Development ofsocial class awareness. In addition to the findings by Adler and
colleagues, other researchers have explored the development of social class awareness in
childhood and how this developing awareness may begin to impact self-concept and
career development. Research suggests that an awareness of social class develops early in
life (Mookherjee & Hogan, 1981; Ramsey, 1991). For instance, Ramsey (1991) found
that children are able to reliably classify into social class categories based on perceptual
cues (e.g., attire) by the age of 6. In a study with children ages 5 to 14, Weinger (2000)
further discovered that these perceived differences translate into differing expectations
for career success. Children in the study were shown photographs representing families at
different levels of social status (a rundown home or a nicer house with landscaping) and,
in response to questions about career outcomes for children growing up in these houses,
expressed lower confidence in the ability of poor children to achieve their career goals.
In a large sample of children from grades three through twelve, Simmons and
Rosenberg (1971) found that elementary school children were able to rank occupations
by prestige level, and that their rankings were highly correlated with those of adults
(Spearman rho rank-order correlation of .93). Further, the authors found that 70% of
high-school-aged participants perceived unequal opportunities in life, with a majority of
20
these respondents attributing barriers to socioeconomic or racial/ethnic disadvantage.
Interestingly, this awareness of a differential opportunity structure did not necessarily
translate to a diminished view of personal chances for success. Almost all respondents
(97%) in Simmons and Rosenberg's study indicated that they felt they had a "better
chance" or "just as good a chance" to succeed as most other people, regardless of SES
background. An additional finding of this study suggests the possibility that class
awareness can serve as a motivating factor. Participants who had a greater awareness of
differences in occupational prestige were more likely to express an interest in upward
mobility.
These findings suggest that a psychologically-based conceptualization of social
class may provide a unique contribution to the understanding of vocational development.
In an attempt to address the need for a framework within which to examine social class as
an intrapsychic variable, Fouad and Brown (2000) proposed the concept of d~fferential
status identity. Differential status identity captures individual perceptions of and reactions
to the influence of social class.
Differential status identity. In the United States, there is an assumption ofmerit
involved in social stratification. That is, social class membership or social standing is
presumed to be deserved based on hard work or lack thereof (Heppner & Scott, 2004).
Given this societal bias, it is apparent that an internalization of one's social standing may
have a powerful psychological effect. Fouad and Brown (2000) intended the concept of
differential status identity (DSI) to help explain the influence of both race and class on
21
psychological and identity development, based on the recognition that these two
contributors to social standing are inextricably intertwined.
The authors assert that, rather than directly influencing development, race and
class are manifest in perceived differences in social standing and that it is these perceived
differences that impact psychosocial development. An individual's social context and
groups of membership are contained within an overall social hierarchy, whereby different
individuals and groups have differential access to resources and levels of influence in the
larger social system. The experience of social standing across multiple dimensions of the
self or groups of membership effects psychological development and behavior.
According to the DSI model, those growing up in the most subordinate group
(i.e., in poverty and the conditions that accompany it, such as residing in low-SES, inner-
city neighborhoods) developmentally are most effected, as opposed to those closer to or
above the average status (i.e., in the middle class and residing in suburban
neighborhoods). As part ofthe model, social status is defined as representing relation and
access to three dimensions: economic resources (income, wealth, economic security),
prestige (social valuation in the forms of occupational prestige, group association,
consumption habits), and power (control over social values in the forms of political
participation, ability to influence public policy, access to government benefits). An
individual may have different levels of access to each of these three dimensions, and each
contributes to his or her relative social standing, highlighting the multidimensional nature
of social status.
22
Importance in Career Development
In their review of the literature in 1984, Schulenberg, Vondracek, and Crouter
called the impact of SES on career development "pivotal." The authors stated that "If one
were permitted only a single variable with which to predict an individual's occupational
status, it would surely be the SES of the individual's family" (p. 130). In fact, the
influence of social status can be seen at all stages ofthe career development process,
from career aspirations to retirement choices (Brown et aI., 1996). Of interest in working
with adolescents and young adults is how early vocational attitudes and behaviors are
impacted by social status, as these set the stage for later vocational choice and outcomes.
In this section, I first provide an overview of the literature on the relationship between
SES and career development variables for this population. Second, I review the limited
research on social class influences on adolescent and young adult career development that
utilizes the constructs of subjective status or differential status identity.
Socioeconomic status. Several reviews ofthe literature have doclimented SES
influences on career-related variables (Brown et aI., 1996; Fouad & Brown, 2000;
Whiston & Keller, 2004b). Included here is a summary of findings related to outcomes
particularly relevant to the career development of adolescents and young adults: the
development of educational and occupational aspirations and expectations, views on the
world of work, the perception of barriers hindering the ability to follow through on
educational or career-related goals, and self-efficacy for personal educational and
occupational achievement.
23
Available studies provide strong evidence to suggest that having a lower SES
family background is related to restricted career-related aspirations and expectations.
Multiple studies have found a difference in the prestige level of students' vocational
aspirations (i.e., their planned future occupation) based on SES background (e.g., Hanna
& Kahn, 1989; Jacobs, Karen, & McClelland, 1991 ; McWhirter & Paa, 1996; Mullet,
Neto, & Henry, 1992). Students are more likely to aim for careers similar in prestige to
their background (i.e., the prestige level of their parents' jobs). Three studies utilizing
National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS) data from 1988 also support this
conclusion (Rojewski & Kim, 2003; Rojewski & Yang, 1997; Solorzano, 1992). In fact,
Rojewski and Yang (1997) estimated that SES may explain approximately 10% of the
variance in occupational aspirations. They found that the effect of SES on occupational
aspirations was larger than that ofrace/ethnicity or gender. Similarly, Solorzano's (1992)
concluded that, regardless of ethnic background, aspirations and occupational
expectations rose with SES. These contextual effects of SES may extend beyond the
home. In a sample of 546 African-American adolescents, Quane and Rankin (1998)
found that neighborhood disadvantage level (poor vs. middle-class neighborhoods) was
related to lowered employment expectations for the youth.
Other research supports the notion that social status influences the way in which
career choices are approached. In a qualitative study ofthe schoo1-to-work transition with
young adults, Blustein et al. (2002) found that high SES participants were more likely to
view their work as a source of meaning and personal satisfaction and to be engaged in
work related to their interests, long-term goals, and self-concept. Conversely, low SES
---------------
24
patiicipants expressed a need to work for economic survival and were more likely to be
focused on a short-term timeframe. These same low SES participants also described
greater external barriers to educational patiicipation and were less likely to engage in
career exploration activities.
The perception of barriers to pursuing an education may help explain the statistic
that a college oppOliunity gap exists regardless of level of preparation (National Center
for Education Statistics, 2002). The percentage of college-qualified high school students
who go on to attend college decreases with household income. Growing up in a low SES
family is associated with higher levels of perceived barriers to educational and career
attainment and lowered plans for educational attainment (McWhirter, Hackett, &
Bandalos, 1998).
Finally, Hanna and Kahn (1989) found that self-efficacy expectations varied with
SES. As SES increased so did studentratings of their ability to do or learn a range of
jobs. Likewise, when students were asked about their beliefs in their ability to complete
training requirements related to a job and to perform the required job tasks, Lauver and
Jones (1991) found that self-efficacy increased with SES.
Subjective status. Research findings that assess the impact of perceptions of social
status on career development are limited. Existing studies offer a mixed view on the
influence of subjective status. First, two studies, which utilize a recently created measure
based on the concept of differential status identity as outlined by Fouad and Brown
(2000), link perceived status with career-development-related variables in the direction
suggested by the research on SES: lower perceived status relates to poorer outcomes. In
25
one ofthese studies, only weak correlations were found between scores on the DSI
measure and the prestige level of occupational aspirations and status-attainment self-
efficacy (r = .10 to .23 for the various subscales; Ruiz de Esparza, Porter, & Brown,
2003). In another recent use ofDSI, Thompson and Subich (2006) found that higher
perceived access to economic and social resources was associated with higher levels of
career decision self-efficacy (r = .24,p < .01). In this same study, the researchers used
hierarchical regression analysis to examine the contribution ofDSI scores to career
decision self-efficacy independent of attempts to respond in a desirable manner, as there
was concern that participants would skew their social status based on a desire for
impression management. The authors found a small but significant contribution (M2 =
.04).
Contrasting with these findings are several studies suggesting the possibility that
awareness of disadvantaged status may act as a motivating force, resulting in higher
aspirations rather than as a barrier. In the Simmons and Rosenberg (1971) study
introduced previously, the researchers measured class consciousness as being composed
of four dimensions: awareness of occupational prestige differences, familiarity with and
understanding ofthe term "social class," ability to identify peers of higher or lower
status, and awareness of barriers to opportunity. Lower levels of class consciousness were
found in students from lower-class backgrounds, and class consciousness was found to
increase with age for all class groups. Those participants who evidenced greater class
consciousness had higher expectations for their own social mobility. Using a longitudinal
design, Diemer (2009) found that among poor youth of color, consciousness of and
26
motivation to change or challenge social inequity was associated with occupational
expectations, and later adult occupational attainment.
In a qualitative study of young adults with learning disabilities, Lindstrom, Doren,
Metheny, Johnson, and Zane (2007) found that family socioeconomic status influenced
initial career-related choices oflow-SES participants via a perceived or real pressure to
conttibute to the family financially starting at a young age and via a motivation to
achieve greater financial stability and status than that of the family of otigin. Both the
young adults and their parents saw the early work expetiences as providing a
foundational work ethic, sense of responsibility, and time management skills.
Additionally, the young adults from low-SES backgrounds expressed aspirations for
achievement beyond that of their parents.
Summary. The role that perceived status plays in the career development process
remains unclear. The recent availability of the DSI measure will make it easier to
continue to explore the influence of status perceptions in future research. However, the
body ofliterature with respect to SES provides a clearer picture, relating status
background to lowered aspirations, expectations, and self-efficacy and to higher
perceived barriers to educational and occupational attainment.
Family Process
Within the realm of career development, multiple areas of family functioning
have been assessed for their impact on career-related vatiables. These family process
variables include parental attachment, parent support, parent modeling, parenting styles,
parent-communicated expectations, family cohesion, and family involvement in school
----~~~~~~--~~-------------
27
and career decision-making (Penick & Jepsen, 1992; Wall, Covell, & MacIntyre, 1999;
Whiston & Keller, 2004b; Young et aI., 2001). The available studies clearly suggest that
family process factors have a sizable influence on career development outcomes.
The consideration of relational influences in vocational development has emerged
as a new area of focus in the field. Researchers have called for greater attention to and
recognition of how the quality of significant relationships informs the context in which
decision-making and action occur (Blustein, 200 1; Blustein, Prezioso, & Schultheiss,
1995; Schultheiss, 2000, 2003). Additionally, researchers have proposed a greater
emphasis on the role of positive environmental factors, such as relational support, noting
that past research has tended to highlight the impact of barriers and constraints (Lent et
aI., 2000). It has been suggested that social support may even act to assist an individual in
overcoming the impact of perceived and encountered barriers (Kenny, Blustein, Chaves,
Grossman, & Gallagher, 2003; Lent et aI., 2000).
Family support is a potential protective factor and positive influence on career
development that should be explored further. In this section, I first define the construct of
social support and the types of support that have been differentiated. I then review the
literature examining the impact of perceived family support and enacted family support
on vocational development for adolescents and young adults.
Social Support Definition and Types
Multiple operationalizations of social support exist (House, Kahn, McLeod, &
Williams, 1985; Tardy, 1985). Social support is considered one aspect ofthe content of
social relationships and describes a functioning or process component of the relationship
28
(House, Umberson, & Landis, 1988). Barerra (1986) outlined three types of social
support: perceived support (subjective experience of support from others), enacted
support (support actually received from others), and embeddedness (ties to a social
network). In contrast, Tardy (1985) differentiated between five dimensions of social
support and fit these into a hierarchical model. From the top down, these dimensions are
as follows: direction (received or provided), disposition (available or enacted),
description/evaluation (described or evaluated), content, and network (the source: family,
close friends, neighbors, co-workers, community, or professionals). His support content
typology is based on House's (1981) distinction between emotional (provision of trust,
empathy, love), instrumental (helping behaviors), informational (advice), and appraisal
(evaluative feedback) support.
Providing support for Barrera's distinction between perceived and enacted
support is the finding that correlations between the two are typically only moderate,
suggesting that they are distinct constructs (r < or = .30; Lakey & Drew, 1997). Also
weakly correlated are subjective reports of the quality of an adolescents' relationships
with outside perceptions of those same relationships (i.e., those of parents, teachers, or
other observers), and it is the adolescents' reports that show a stronger association with
developmental outcomes (Feldman, Wentzel, & Gehring, 1989). SCCT stresses the active
role of the individual in interpreting his or her environmental context (Lent et aI., 1994,
2000); however, no direct comparisons between objectively-measured and subjectively-
measured family support were found in conducting the literature review for this study.
29
Therefore, it may be useful to consider each of these types of support and their relative
impact on career development.
Importance in Career Development
In their review of the literature, Whiston and Keller (2004b) describe the positive
influence of support from parents as a major theme in the literature, noting that studies
have linked a positive parent-child relationship with higher aspirations and expectations,
a secure sense of self, greater career-related self-efficacy, and increased career
commitment. Social support emerges as a critical factor in the career choice process for
college students, particularly in enabling them to overcome barriers to implementing that
choice (Lent et aI., 2002). Additionally, adolescents rank the support of their mothers and
fathers as a greater source of influence on their own career expectations than teachers,
peers, or school counselors (Paa & McWhirter, 2000).
Reflecting the importance of multiple forms of support from others, particularly
family members, Blustein et aI. (1997) documented the importance ofboth emotional and
instrumental support for young adults engaging in the school-to-work transition.
Instrumental support came in the form of assistance finding jobs and hearing work-
related information. Emotional support was most helpful when it was within the context
of a relationship with a balance between caring and challenging interactions (Blustein et
aI.). Phillips, Blustein, Jobin-Davis, and White (2002) echoed this finding. Adolescents
described the emotional and instrumental support received from adults in their lives as a
key aid in their transition from school-to-work. In addition to active support, these
30
students identified the real-life experiences shared by these adults as supporting their
readiness to engage in the world of work themselves.
In this section, I first provide an overview of the literature on the importance of
perceptions of family support on career development. Second, I review studies which
have sought to elucidate particular parent behaviors contributing to youth's career
development process.
Perceived support. When parents are perceived as supportive, adolescents are
more likely to report higher expectations for their futures (McWhirter et aI., 1998), more
advanced educational plans (McWhirter et aI., 1998), greater career certainty
(Constantine, Wallace, & Kindaichi, 2005), higher career aspirations (Flores & O'Brien,
2002), and greater career-related and educational self-efficacy (Gushue & Whitson, 2006;
Turner, Steward, & Lapan, 2004). In fact, Turner and Lapan (2002) found that
perceptions of parent support explained 29 to 43% of the variance in self-efficacy for
different career types in a sample of 7th and 8th-grade students. Further, adolescents who
describe their family as being unsupportive are more likely to have less clearly defined
goals for the future and to see multiple barriers to achieving their goals (Hill, Ramirez, &
Dumka, 2003). A lack of parent support is also predictive of the perception oflimited
access to opportunity for educational and career development (Wall et aI., 1999).
Enacted support. Receiving parent encouragement for career- or academic-related
pursuits is associated with higher levels of self-efficacy and outcome expectations (e.g.,
Ferry, Fouad, & Smith, 2000). Receiving instrumental support (e.g., ideas about job
opportunities) is associated with greater work salience and higher vocational expectations
31
(Diemer, 2007). Further, Blustein et al. (2002) found that youth particularly valued their
parent's encouragement around engaging in career exploration activities, information and
assistance provided in career planning, and assistance in finding jobs or learning ofjob
leads as they engaged in the transition to work. Young and colleagues have been studying
these and other specific intentional actions on the part of parents which may influence
vocational development.
Young has examined critical incidents between parents and children and looked at
the intentions behind parents' actions (Young, 1994). He sees career development as
occurring within the family context and parents as making choices intended to influence
the career-related behaviors of their children in a variety of ways. He argues that it is
important to recognize the purposeful and conscious nature of parent helping behaviors
and has explored the different ways in which parents contribute to the career
development "project" of their children.
Young, Friesen, and Pearson (1988) gathered information about the most
frequent parent activities intended to influence adolescent's career development from a
sample of207 parents, ages 29 to 62. The researchers gathered critical incidents from the
parents, categorized them, and then constructed a scale in order to code the frequency of
specific behaviors among all of the parent participants. The most frequently used
independent actions (those undertaken by the parent on the part ofthe child but without
their involvement) were structuring the home environment, providing instrumental
support (e.g., buying books), and observing the child. The most frequently cited joint
32
actions (those performed with the child) were giving information, giving feedback,
setting expectations, encouraging, and providing advice and suggestions.
Way and Rossmann (1996) used this intentional interaction perspective in a large-
scale study with 1266 12th-grade adolescents and 879 young adults. They constructed a
measure for parents' intentional career-related interactions based on Young's work. In
both the adolescent and young adult samples, intentional parent interactions contributed
indirectly to school-to-work transition readiness via increasing students' intrinsic
motivation for learning.
Summary. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that perceived family support
is highly influential in shaping the career-related behaviors and attitudes of adolescents
and young adults. The role that intentional support behaviors by parents play in
vocational development has only begun to be explored. Therefore, further research
including this added dimension of support will be useful.
Interaction ofStatus and Process
One explanation given for the findings linking family social status to career
development has been differences in parent involvement or family functioning (Whiston
& Keller, 2004b). In the realm of child development in general, the deleterious impacts of
poverty on child developmental outcomes - including cognitive functioning, academic
achievement, and socioemotional functioning - have been shown to persist even after
controlling for individual differences in family and parenting behaviors (McLoyd, 1998).
In a study utilizing data from the National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS) of 1988
to examine predictors of college completion, Trusty (2004) found a much stronger effect
33
for SES than for parent involvement: an increase in SES by one standard deviation
resulted in a 62% increase in the likelihood of degree completion; in contrast, a one-
standard-deviation increase in parent involvement only increased the likelihood of degree
completion by 13%.
Some vocational research has suggested that children from low SES backgrounds
receive less support from their parents for career endeavors. For instance, low SES young
adults in a qualitative study by Blustein et al. (2002) reported that more disruptions in the
parent-child relationship (e.g., divorce or conflict) and less instrumental support (e.g.,
assistance in obtaining job leads, career information, direct input on career decision-
making and plamling activities) than their high SES counterparts. However, in another
study using the 1988 NELS data set, Trusty, Watts, and Erdman (1997) found that SES
explained less than 1% of the variance in parental involvement in the career development
process for adolescents.
The majority of existing studies have not included a direct comparison of the
influences of family status and family process variables on career development. In this
section, I review the findings of several studies which did incorporate both SES and
family process. I then discuss the implications for future research.
Poole, Langan-Fox, Ciavarella, and Omodei (1991)
In this longitudinal study, Poole, Langan-Fox, Ciavarella, and Omodei (1991)
examined contributors to the professional attaimnent of young adults in Australia. The
sample of approximately 3000 students was surveyed at the ages of 18 (during their
senior year in high school), 21, and 27. Relevant here are their findings related to the
34
contributions of family of origin SES (composite of parents' education and occupational
status) and perceived parental expectations (single item asking whether their parents
wanted them to go on to higher education) on student occupational outcome expectations
(measured via expectation for either professional or nonprofessional status). Results of a
path analysis found that parental expectations was the stronger predictor of student
occupational expectations (beta = .29 versus beta = .05 for SES). Thus, in this study, the
family process variable was a more powerful influence than family status.
Penick and Jepsen (1992)
This study of 215 adolescents in the 11 th grade examined how family functioning
was associated with vocational identity development and the engagement in career
exploration and planning activities. Family functioning was measured along relationship
dimensions (cohesiveness, expressiveness, conflict, sociability, idealization, and
disengagement) and system maintenance dimensions (locus-of-control, family style, and
enmeshment). Background information related to parents' occupational prestige was
utilized to represent SES. SES was not found to be highly correlated with any of the
family functioning dimensions (r = .04 to .16, with only the relationship to locus of
control at a moderate level of r = -.29). Results of regression analyses found that
perceived family functioning was more strongly related to the outcome variables than
SES, and the contribution of SES was not statistically significant. Again in this study,
family process was the more powerful influence.
---------------------------
35
Way and Rossmann (1996)
Way and Rossmann (1996) studied family influences on vocational development,
including the variables of family functioning, parent intentional interactions, family work
values, and parent participation in schooling. The researchers examined the impact of
these variables on student learning processes and readiness for the school-to-work
transition. Included in the study were the individual background factors of sex, race, SES,
and family structure (i.e., whether single parent). Two separate studies were conducted:
one with 1266 adolescents in the 12th grade, representative of the U.S. secondary school
population, and one with 879 adult students from two-year colleges. Each study
conducted a path analysis testing a hypothesized model predicting transition readiness
(assessed via measures of vocational identity, work effectiveness skills, career indecision,
and post-high school plans).
In the adolescent study, SES was found to directly contribute to most variables of
family functioning: a proactive family interaction style, more parent involvement in
school, more interaction related to the career development process (Way & Rossmann,
1996). In terms of the overall model predicting transition readiness, SES exerted no total
or direct effects on readiness. Only indirect effects for SES were found via its impact on
family functioning.
In the adult study, SES was assessed for both the family of origin (parent
education and occupation) and the current family (Way & Rossmann, 1996). The results
were that family of origin SES was again found to exert a direct effect on family
functioning variables: proactive family functioning, family interactions related to the
36
career development process, and greater perceived support for career development.
However, family of origin SES was not directly or indirectly linked with school-to-work
transition readiness. SES in the current family was directly linked with transition
readiness. This suggests that current status may be more important for career
development variables. It also provides support for the notion that family functioning
may vary by status background.
Ali, Me Whirter, and Chronister (2005)
Ali, McWhirter, and Chronister (2005) examined the relationships between SES,
vocational and educational self-efficacy, vocational outcome expectations, perceived
social support (from parents, friends, and siblings), and perceptions of educational
barriers. The sample for the study was 114 adolescents in the 9th grade of whom 32%
were eligible for free and reduced lunch (a commonly-used indicator of poverty status).
In preliminary analyses of the correlations between these variables, SES was related to
mother and father support (r = .35 and .37,p < .01) and to the outcome variables of se1f-
efficacy and outcome expectations (r = .24 and .22,p < .05) at a moderate, statistically
significant level.
A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was'used to assess the relative
contributions of social support and SES in predicting self-efficacy. In contrast to prior
findings, mother and father support were not significant predictors, and SES did not
provide any additional unique variance. Only sibling and peer support was found to be
significantly predictive ofhigher self-efficacy. Findings were similar for the regression
37
equation predicting outcome expectations. Self-efficacy, sibling support, and peer support
were the only significant predictors.
Ali and Saunders (2006)
In this study, Ali and Saunders (2006) examined the predictors of college
expectations for 87 adolescents in the 10th and 11 th grade in a high school in rural
Appalachia, an area where an estimated 30% of adults live in poverty. A hierarchical
multiple regression analysis was used to assess the relative contributions of mother's
education and occupation, father's education and occupation, vocational/educational self-
efficacy, and perceived parental support in predicting students' expectations for
completing college. SES was assessed from parent education levels and occupational
prestige. Additional analyses were conducted to determine whether parent support and
SES predict self-efficacy and whether SES predicts parent support. The results of the
analysis indicated that parent support was a significant predictor ofboth
vocational/educational self-efficacy and college expectations. SES was not a significant
predictor of college expectations, self-efficacy, or parent support. This finding suggests
that parent support, the family process variable examined, has greater impact than family
status.
Implications for Future Research
The findings of these four studies are mixed with regard to the relative
contributions of SES and family process variables to career development outcomes. Each
of the studies reviewed uses objective measures of SES and a variety of family process
measures. Each study also differed in the outcome variable under study (occupational
38
expectations, school-to-work transition readiness, social-cognitive variables, or college
expectations). Given this range of targeted variables, it is difficult to make generalization
based on these research studies.
One theme is that the influence of SES diminished or vanished when family
process was taken into account (Ali & Saunders, 2006; Way & Rossmann, 1996) and that
family process variables were the stronger influence (Penick & Jepsen, 1992; Poole et aI.,
1991). This reflects the general conclusion that can be drawn from a comparison of the
findings related to each potential influence (see Whiston & Keller, 2004b). While it has
been suggested that SES may be linked to family support behaviors, with less support
being perceived and received within low SES families, this finding was only evidenced in
one of the studies reviewed (Way & Rossmann).
Thus, more research is clearly warranted in order to replicate and extend these
findings. In fact, in concluding their extensive review of the literature, Whiston and
Keller (2004b) recommend a return to the examination of family structural variables
(e.g., SES) and new investment in determining particular parent behaviors influential for
vocational development. The authors label the impact of SES significant but note the
limited understanding of how this influence operates and how it interacts with other
family variables.
Summary
The review ofthe literature and summary of SCCT supports a number of
conclusions. First, the existing body ofliterature has failed to address the psychological
aspects of social class, instead maintaining a sociological focus on its objective
39
measurement. With its high potential to impact the career development process,
additional research into the role and influence of social class is needed. Second, little is
known about the way that social class background and family process characteristics
interact to influence outcomes. Numerous researchers have called for research
investigating family variables that may be viable foci of prevention and intervention.
Thus, this review emphasizes the importance of research analyzing the contribution of
family of origin context on vocational behavior. This dissertation study aimed to address
the existing deficits in the literature and contribute to the discipline's understanding of
family influences on career development.
Purpose ofStudy
The aim of this study was to examine the role that family background and process
variables have on social cognitive career-related outcome variables. I hoped to further
elucidate the particular role of social status, both objective and subjective, and its
interaction with family support in the career development of young adults - specifically
college students. A non-experimental, survey design was employed to explore the
relationships among family of origin socioeconomic status, subjective social status,
perceived family support for career development, enacted family support for career
development, and the social cognitive variables of self-efficacy beliefs and outcome
expectations. My research questions were the following:
Research Question 1: Is there a relationship between socioeconomic status in the
family of origin and social-cognitive career-related variables? It was hypothesized
40
that there is a significant, positive relationship between family SES and career-
related self-efficacy and between family SES and outcome expectations.
Research Question 2: Is there a relationship between an individual's subjective
social status and social-cognitive career-related variables? It was hypothesized
that there is a significant, positive relationship between subjective status and
career-related self-efficacy and between subjective status and outcome
expectations.
Research Question 3: Which is the more powerful influence on social-cognitive
career-related variables: objective status (family of origin SES) or subjective
status? It was hypothesized that an individual's perceptions of his or her status
will have a stronger relationship with career-related self-efficacy and with
outcome expectations.
Research Question 4: How does enacted family support for career development
affect the relationship between objective social status and social-cognitive career-
related variables? It was hypothesized that enacted family support will mediate
the relationship between social status and career-related self-efficacy and between
social status and outcome expectations. Also, it was hypothesized that students
who report higher levels of enacted family support will experience higher levels
of career-related self-efficacy and outcome expectations, regardless of their level
of social status.
Research Question 5: How do perceptions of family support for career
development affect the relationship between objective social status and social-
41
cognitive career-related variables? It was hypothesized that perceptions of family
support will mediate the relationship between social status and career-related se1f-
efficacy and between social status and outcome expectations. Also, it was
hypothesized that students who perceive higher levels of family support will
experience higher levels of career-related self-efficacy and outcome expectations,
regardless of their level of social status.
The model representing the hypothesized relationship among the variables under study is
depicted in Figure 2.
Family of Origin
SES Enacted Family
Support for Career
Development
Perceived Family
Support for Career
Development
Subjective
Social Status
Career Decision
Self-Efficacy
Career Outcome
Expectations
Figure 2. Hypothesized model for study: Expected relationships among family SES,
subjective social status, perceived family support, enacted family support, career decision
self-efficacy, and career-related outcome expectations. SES = socioeconomic status.
42
CHAPTER III
METHODS
Participants
Participants were male and female undergraduate students, aged 18 to 22 years,
from 2- or 4-year community colleges, colleges, and universities. A total of 308 surveys
were collected online. Of these, six were discarded because the participant indicated that
they were outside of the accepted age range. An additional 22 were dropped from the
study because of incomplete data (they abandoned the survey before reaching the end and
failed to complete two or more of the measures). This resulted in a sample of279.
Of the participants in the sample, 85% were female, and 14% were male, with one
participant identifying as transgender. The mean age for the sample was 19.9 (SD = 1.5).
The self-identified ethnicity of participants was 79% Euro-American, 7% Asian or Asian-
American, 7% multiethnic, 4% Latino/a, 1% Middle Eastern, 1% "other," and less than
1% each for Native American, African-American, and Pacific Islander.
Ninety-six percent (n = 269) of the students were attending a 4-year college or
university, with the remaining students indicating attendance at either a 2-year college
(2%) or a community college (2%). Participants identified their U.S. area of residence as
follows: 81 % Northwest, 7% Southeast, 6% Northeast, 2% Southwest, 2% South, 1%
Midwest, and 1% "other." Forty-nine percent (n = 136) of the students reported being
43
currently "partially financially dependent upon one or more ofmy parents/guardians,"
whereas 38% reported being fully financially dependent, 10% identified as financially
independent, and 3% endorsed currently being in "a relationship in which I share
financial responsibility or my partner provides for me (romantic partnership or
marriage)."
Procedure
Data collection occurred during the fall and winter terms of the school year.
Participants for the study were solicited in two ways. First, college-aged students in the
Eugene, Oregon area were solicited via advertisements on the University of Oregon
campus. Fliers were posted in the student union and in classroom buildings. Permission
to hand out fliers in large survey courses was also obtained from instructors in the
Psychology, Sociology, and Family and Human Services departments. Email
advertisements were sent to departmental secretaries at the University of Oregon
requesting that they be distributed to student lists.
As a second form ofrecruitment, I used a snowball sampling technique (Gall,
Gall, & Borg, 2003). Snowball sampling relies on previously identified group members
to identify others in the population and is considered a non-probability sampling
technique. In this technique, well-located people provide guidance in recommending
potential participant sources which may be tapped for recruitment. As increasing numbers
ofpeople become aware of the study, the researcher is able to find an increasing number
ofpotential participants. In this study, I communicated with faculty, staff, colleagues, and
44
co-workers who recommended emaillistserves, other faculty/staff, and/or individuals
from a variety of educational institutions who could connect me with additional contacts.
Data was collected in the form of an online questionnaire battery. Participation
eligibility criteria were as follows: (a) a student currently enrolled in a 2- or 4-year
educational institution, (b) between the ages of 18-22, and (c) able to read and write
English. I provided monetary incentive in order to increase recruitment success. Each
participant was offered the opportunity to submit contact information in order to receive a
five dollar Starbucks gift card as compensation for their participation.
Study advertisements included (a) a brief description of the study, including the
eligibility criteria and approximate length of time required to complete the survey (25
minutes), (b) a statement of the compensation opportunity, and (c) a web-based link
connecting them to the survey web pages. The web link included in advertisements led
participants to the informed consent statement (see Appendix A). In the informed consent
statement, participants had the opportunity to read a brief description of the study and
were informed oftheir right to decline or discontinue participation at any time in the
research process without negative consequence. Because of the anonymous nature of the
study, participants did not sign the informed consent but instead indicated consent by
completing and submitting the survey.
Measures
In this section, I describe each of the measures used in this study. All measures
are included in Appendix B. Table 1 provides an overview of study constructs and their
associated measures.
45
Construct Measure # Items Variable Type
Socioeconomic Status Nakao-Treas 1 Continuous
Socioeconomic Index Range = 17 to 97
(SEI)
Subjective Social Status Differential Status 60 Continuous
Identity Scale (DSIS) Range = 60 to 300
Perceived Family Support for Family of Origin Career 10 Continuous
Career Development Development Support Range = 10 to 30
Enacted Family Support for Parent Intentional Career- 10 Continuous
Career Development Related Interactions Range = 10 to 40
Career Decision-Making Self- Career Decision Self- 25 Continuous
Efficacy Efficacy Scale - Short Range = 1 to 5
Form (CDSE-SF)
Career Outcome Expectations Vocational Outcomes 12 Continuous
Expectations Scale (VOE) Range = 1 to 4
Table 1. Description of Study Constructs and Measures
Person and Family Context Variables
Demographic information and socioeconomic status. Participants were asked to
fill out a brief demographic questionnaire with questions regarding their age,
race/ethnicity, sex, financial status, and parental occupation. The Nakao-Treas
Socioeconomic Index (SEI; Nakao & Treas, 1994) was used to assess the socioeconomic
background of each participant. This measure allows for a numeric score to be assigned
46
to an occupational title. The Nakao-Treas SEI is used to represent "objective" social
status for this study.
SEI scores are based on updated occupational data obtained by the 1989 National
Opinion Research Center (NORC) General Social Survey (GSS) using 1980 U.S. Census
occupational titles (Nakao & Treas, 1994). SEI scores can range from 17 (e.g., sewing
machine operator) to 97 (e.g., physician), with a mean score of 52.5. SEI scores have
been used extensively by sociologists studying social status since Duncan created the first
such measure in 1961 (Nakao & Treas). In late adolescence, it is expected that the social
standing of their family of origin still exerts considerable influence on current attitudes
and behaviors (Brown et aI., 1996). Therefore, parent occupational titles were used to
calculate SEI scores for the participants.
Scores were assigned for parents or other caregivers who provided direct financial
support and lived in the household during the participants' adolescent years. Consistent
with prior research, if two or more SEI scores are available for a participant, the highest
score for the household was used (Blustein et aI., 2002; Lauver & Jones, 1991;
McWhirter, 1997). Scores were assigned independently by me and two research
assistants. Interrater reliability was assessed, and scores for any discrepancies were
determined collaborative1y by the raters, with additional consultation as needed from
Ellen H. McWhirter. SEI scores for this sample ranged from 27 to 97.
Subjective social status. Perceived social status was assessed using the
Differential Status Identity Scale (DSIS; Brown et aI., 2002). The DSIS was constructed
based on Fouad and Brown's (2000) conceptualization of differential status identity
47
which outlines three dimensions of social status in tenns of the relation and access to (a)
economic resources, (b) prestige, and (c) power. Each of these dimensions is represented
in a subscale of the measure. The resulting 60-item scale has been used in several initial
validation studies (Thompson & Subich, 2006; Thompson & Subich, 2007).
Respondents are asked to compare themselves to the "average U.S. citizen" for
items based on a 5-point, Likert-type scale with response options ranging from very much
below average (scored as -2) to very much above average (scored as +2) on the economic
resources and social power subscales. Response options are slightly different for the
social prestige subscale: much less (scored as -2) to much more (scored as +2). Consistent
with recommendations in prior studies, scores will be converted to a 1 to 5 scale for
analysis purposes. Item scores are summed to create three separate subscale scores and a
total scale score. Higher scores represent higher perceived status.
The economic subscale consists of30 items which ask the respondents about
perceptions of how they compare to the average U.S. citizen in tenns of having the
financial means to take part in a variety ofbehaviors. Sample items include "ability to
travel recreationally," "ability to afford prescription medicine," and "ability to afford
regular dental visits." The social subscale consists of 15 items which ask respondents
about perceptions of the extent to which society values or appreciates various aspects of
their lives. Sample items include "type of car you drive," "neighborhood in which you
live," and "ethnic/racial group." Finally, the power subscale consists of 15 items which
ask respondents to indicate how much social power they perceive themselves as having
relative to the average citizen. Sample items include "influence state or federal
---_._-_.----
48
educational policies," "receive a fair trial," and "contact people in high places for a job or
position."
The authors' validation work on the measure is ongoing (M. T. Brown, personal
communication, February 23,2007), but preliminary research has been conducted and
published by Thompson and Subich in several articles. This preliminary research
supports the division of the scale into multiple subscales (Thompson & Subich, 2007). A
four factor structure emerged in this preliminary analysis, which included two distinct
economic subscales: one which the authors labeled "basic needs" and another which the
authors labeled "amenities." In a separate study, these authors tested the relative
contributions of each of the DSIS subscales (Thompson & Subich, 2006). When entered
in varying order in hierarchical multiple regression analyses, the subscale entered first
was always found to account for the unique variance in the outcome variable - each
subsequent subscale entered did not contribute additional variance. This suggests that
dividing this measure into multiple subscales for analysis purposes may have little utility.
In terms of scale reliability, internal consistency coefficients have been high. In a
sample of 174 college students (average age 22.4 years; 80% Caucasian), an alpha of .98
was obtained (Thompson & Subich, 2006). In this same sample, the authors tested the
scale's discriminant validity by testing the correlation with measures of self-esteem (r = -
.08) and psychological entitlement (r = .04). Neither relationship was statistically
significant, suggesting that DSIS is a distinct construct. Further, scores on the measure
were related positively and statistically significantly to self-reported social class (r = ,45,
49
p < .01) and childhood family income (r = .38,p < .01). This suggests that DSIS scores
are related to but also distinct from other family of origin status measures.
In a second sample of 221 college students (average age 21.9 years; 80%
Caucasian), an alpha of .97 was obtained (Thompson & Subich, 2006). Again in this
sample, there was a moderate, positive, statistically-significant relationship between
DSIS scores and self-reported social class (r = .62,p < .01) and between DSIS scores and
childhood family income (r = .45,p < .01).
Finally, in a third sample of 454 college students (average age 22.1 years; 72%
Caucasian), these same researchers obtained an alpha of .97 for the measure (Thompson
& Subich, 2007). Positive, statistically-significant relationships were reported between
the scale scores and self-reported social class (r = .56,p < .01) and childhood income
level (r = .42,p < .01). Analyses also revealed that subscale scores were consistently
lower for African-American participants than for Caucasian participants. An alpha of .97
was obtained for the present study.
Perceivedfamily support. Perceptions of support for career development were
assessed using a 5-item scale developed by Way and Rossmann (1996). Items reflect
financial, emotional, and instrumental types of support perceived as being present in the
family of origin. Respondents are asked to identify the extent to which the family they
grew up in has provided different kinds of support. Response options include no support
(scored as 1), a little support (scored as 2), or considerable support (scored as 3). Sample
items are "To what extent has the family you grew up in given you financial support for
your education and training?" and "To what extent has the family you grew up in given
50
you information and contacts that helped you with your occupational choices?" Higher
total scores reflect higher levels of perceived support from the family of origin.
An internal reliability coefficient of .83 was obtained in a sample of 879 adults
attending two-year colleges in the states of Arizona, Georgia, Minnesota, and
Pennsylvania (Way & Rossmann, 1996). The sample was mostly Euro-American (77%),
female (75%), married (59%), and represented a range of ages: below 21 (17%),21-25
(26%),26-30 (14%), 31-35 (13%), and 36 and older (22%). In this sample, family of
origin career development support was correlated positively with family of origin
proactive functioning - a variable assessing family functioning patterns via measurement
of family cohesion, organization, democratic decision-making, sociability, and other
related characteristics using Bloom's (1985) comprehensive survey of family functioning
(r = .58). Family of origin career development support was also correlated positively with
parent intentional career-related interactions (variable described in the section that
follows, r = .53). Suggesting criterion-validity, support scores were also correlated
positively with school transition smoothness (r = .46) - a variable assessed via the time
lapse between high school and further schooling and the consistency of study interest
areas between high school and current schooling.
Five items have been added to this measure for the purposes of this study (items 6
through 10). These items were created to represent Tardy's four types of support.
Because the original scale items focus on instrumental support (items 1, 4, and 5), I added
items reflecting appraisal (item 6), emotional (items 7 and 10), and informational (items 8
and 9) support. The new items are written in a format similar to the original items: "To
51
what extent has the family you grew up in helped you understand your strengths and/or
talents," "To what extent has the family you grew up in encouraged you to pursue your
goals and/or plans for the future," "To what extent has the family you grew up in been
available if you want to talk about a problem," "To what extent has the family you grew
up in been helpful when you have questions about educational or career-related issues,"
and "To what extent has the family you grew up in expressed pride in your educational or
career-related accomplishments?" (items 6 through 10 respectively). The modified ten-
item version of the scale was evaluated for internal consistency (via coefficient alpha)
and unidimensionality (via exploratory factor analysis).
Psychometric properties for the modified version ofthis measure were sufficient;
therefore, the modified version was used in subsequent analyses. An alpha of .85 was
obtained for the present sample, suggesting adequate internal consistency (Clark &
Watson, 1995). An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using maximum-
likelihood extraction, no rotation, and listwise deletion of missing values. The size of the
eigenvalue for the first factor relative to that of the next largest factor was 5: 1. Further,
the variance of inter-item correlations was reasonably low (0.016), suggesting adequate
unidimensionality (Clark & Watson).
Enactedfamily support. Enacted family support for career development was
assessed using a 10-item scale developed by Way and Rossmann (1996). The scale was
developed based on the qualitative research of Young and Friesen (1992), which
examined intentional actions of parents attempting to influence the career development of
their children. The assumption underlying Young and Friesen's work is that parent
52
behaviors are often purposeful in their intent and seek to influence children's
development in specific ways. Based on parent reports of their intentions around a select
set of critical incidents described in interviews, Young and Friesen developed categories
based on the content of the intention. Way and Rossmann's scale assesses for the
following types of interactions from Young and Friesen's work: skill acquisition,
facilitation ofhuman relationships, increasing independent thinking and action,
development of personal responsibility, enhancing self-image, and decreasing sex-role
stereotyping.
Respondents are asked to indicate the degree to which items reflect the family
they grew up in. Response options range from very untrue for my parent(s)/guardian(s)
or family (scored as 1) to very true for my parent(s)/guardian(s) or family (scored as 4).
Sample items are "My family helped me to develop job skills which are useful now,"
"My family stressed that males and females have similar abilities and career
alternatives," and "My family stressed that I must be responsible for my own actions."
Higher total scores reflect the presence of more intentional interactions on the part of the
respondent's parents.
An internal reliability coefficient of .86 was obtained in a sample of 879 adults
attending two-year colleges in the states of Arizona, Georgia, Minnesota, and
Pennsylvania (Way & Rossmann, 1996). This sample is described in more detail in the
section immediately preceding this one. In addition to this scale's correlation with family
of origin career development support (r = .53), scores on this scale were also positively
53
correlated with family of origin proactive functioning (r = .63) and to a lesser degree with
transition smoothness (r = .28). An alpha of .80 was obtained for the present study.
Career-Related Outcome Variables
Career decision-making se(fefjicacy. Career decision-making self-efficacy can be
conceptualized as an individual's judgment of personal competency in completing the
tasks necessary to make positive career-related choices and is considered a form of
process efficacy (Betz & Taylor, 2001; Lent & Brown, 2006). The Career Decision Se1f-
Efficacy Scale (CDSE-SF; Betz & Taylor, 2001; Betz, Klein, & Taylor, 1996; Taylor &
Betz, 1983) is a scale developed to assess this construct. The scale was constructed based
on Crites' (1978) theory of career maturity which outlined five areas of competency
within the domain of career choice: self-appraisal, occupational information, goal
selection, planning, and problem solving. The resulting 25-item scale has been used
extensively within the vocational psychology literature.
Respondents are asked to rate each of a series of statements reflective of career-
related decision-making tasks on a 5-point, Likert-type scale with response options
ranging from no confidence at all (scored as 1) to complete confidence (scored as 5).
Sample tasks are "Determine what your ideal job would be," "Prepare a good resume,"
and "Choose a career that will fit your lifestyle." Higher total mean scores reflect higher
levels of self-efficacy in this domain.
Reliability and validity evidence for the CDSE has been reported by Betz and
colleagues (Betz & Luzzo, 1996; Betz & Taylor, 1994; Betz & Taylor, 2001; Betz,
Hammond, & Multon, 2005; Betz et aI., 1996). Recent studies have reported internal
54
consistency coefficients of .95 in a sample of 224 adults from a variety of ethnic,
education, and employment backgrounds (Juntunen & Wettersten, 2006) and .97 for a
sample of325 Midwestern high school seniors, the majority of which were Euro-
American (77%; Metheny, McWhirter, & O'Neil, 2008). An alpha of .95 was obtained
for the present study.
Career outcome expectations. Career outcome expectations can be defined as an
individual's imagined consequences of engaging in a career. Outcome expectations were
assessed using the Vocational Outcome Expectations scale (VOE; McWhirter, Rasheed,
& Crothers, 2000). Respondents indicate their degree of agreement with 6 statements on
a 4-point, Likert-type scale with response options ranging from strongly disagree (scored
as 1) to strongly agree (scored as 4). Item scores are averaged, with higher scores
indicating more positive outcome expectations. Sample items from the scale include "I
will be successful in my chosen career/occupation" and "My talents and skills will be
used in my career/occupation."
In a sample of high school sophomores, test-retest reliability at 9 weeks was
reported as r = .59 (McWhirter, Rasheed, & Crothers, 2000). Concurrent validity was
demonstrated via the scale's moderate correlation (r =.54) with a five item outcome
expectation measure developed by Fouad and Smith (1996). Recent studies have reported
high internal consistency coefficients. An alpha of .90 was found for a sample of 325
seniors at an urban public high school in a midsized Midwestern city, of which the
majority were Euro-American (77%) and of a mean age of 17.5 (Metheny, McWhirter, &
O'Neil, 2008). An alpha of.92 was found for a sample of 114 ninth-grade students in a
55
semi-rural, Northwestern high school, ofwhich the majority were Euro-American (77%)
and of a mean age of 14.7 years (Ali, McWhirter, & Chronister, 2005). While the
measure has not been used with a young adult population previously, measure items are
constructed such that they can be considered appropriate for a variety of ages. Further,
the measure has been used successfully with high school seniors, and there is a lack of
available measures developed specifically for a college-aged population.
Given the measure's brevity and inclusion of items that are not specific to career-
related choices (e.g., "The future looks bright for me" and "I can make my future a happy
one"), six items were added to this measure (items 7 through 12). These items were
created to represent Bandura's three types of outcome expectations. Added items reflect
self-evaluation or satisfaction (items 7 and 10), physical (items 8 and 12), and social
(items 9 and 11) outcomes associated with career choices. These items are specific to
outcomes related to the career decision-making process: "I will get the job I want in my
chosen career," "My career/occupation choice will provide the income I need," "I will
have a career/occupation that is respected in our society," "I will achieve my
career/occupational goals," "My family will approve ofmy career/occupation choice,"
and "My career/occupation choice will allow me to have the lifestyle that I want" (items
7 through 12 respectively).
Psychometric properties for the modified version of this measure were sufficient;
therefore, the modified version was used in subsequent analyses. An alpha of .92 was
obtained for the present sample, suggesting adequate internal consistency (Clark &
Watson, 1995). An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using maximum-
56
likelihood extraction, no rotation, and listwise deletion of missing values. The size of the
eigenvalue for the first factor relative to that of the next largest factor was 7: 1. Further,
the variance of inter-item correlations was reasonably low (0.008), suggesting adequate
unidimensionality (Clark & Watson).
57
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
Ofthe 279 cases in the sample, twenty-three percent (n = 63) contained missing
item responses. Overall, less than 1% of the data was missing. Little's missing
completely at random (MCAR) test indicated that missing items were missing completely
at random, X2 (6522) = 6554.06, p = .39. Therefore, in order to maximize sample size,
expectation maximization (EM) imputation was used to calculate maximum likelihood
estimates for missing values in the data set (Dempster, Laird, & Rubin, 1977).
An examination of the data for outliers revealed five cases with large
Mahalanobis D-squared values and p-values less than .01. Visual inspection of these
cases revealed that the respondent's data contained little variability in responses on some
measures, suggesting that the respondent may not have considered each item separately
when answering. As a result, these cases were discarded, leaving a total of274 cases in
the final sample. The means, standard deviations, and range ofmean item scores, as well
as alpha coefficients for each measured variable and a correlation matrix, are presented in
Table 2.
Variable M 3D Range a 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Socioeconomic status 64.50 18.79 27-97
2. Subjective social status 3.24 0.57 1.32-4.93 .97 .26***
3. Perceived family support 2.64 0.36 1.40-3.00 .85 .25*** .46***for career development
4. Enacted family support for 3.36 0.43 2.00-4.00 .80 .11 .23*** .53***
career development
5. Career decision self- 3.94 0.59 2.00-5.00 .95 .06 .35*** .26*** .25***
efficacy
6. Career outcome 3.44 0.41 2.33-4.00 .92 -.05 .26*** .29*** .34*** .58***
expectations
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics, Reliability Coefficients, and Correlations among Measured Variables
***p < .001.
VI
00
59
Examination of skewness and kurtosis statistics (using a cutoff value of +/-1.00),
along with histograms, suggested that distributions for the following variables
approximated normal: socioeconomic status, subjective social status, enacted family
support, career decision self-efficacy, and career-related outcome expectations. The data
for perceived family support was both negatively skewed (-1.47) and leptokurtic (1.95).
However, the skew and kurtosis values for this variable did not exceed Kline's (1998)
identified the threshold values for skew (+/-3.00) and kurtosis (+/-10.00) beyond which
data is considered to seriously depart from normality and to be problematic for structural
equation modeling (SEM) analyses. Further, path analyses are generally robust to
violation of normality for larger samples (>100; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).
Path Analyses
Research questions regarding the relative strength of independent variables in
influencing the outcome variables and the potential mediating role of family support were
addressed via path analysis. The model introduced in Figure 2 served as the basis for
creating the path model. The exogenous (independent) variable in the path model was
family socioeconomic status (SES). The endogenous (dependent) variables in the path
model were perceived family support for career development, enacted family support for
career development, subjective status, career decision self-efficacy, and career outcome
expectations. I used Amos 9.0 (Arbuckle, 2005) and maximum likelihood estimation
(MLE) to run the path analysis and to calculate path coefficients and model fit indices.
I randomly split my sample of274 students into two samples: a calibration sample
(n = 134) and a validation sample (n = 140). The calibration sample was used to test the
60
hypothesized model (see Figure 2). The validation sample was reserved to allow for
cross-validation in the case that model revisions were required (Klem, 1995).
In evaluating model fit, I used a variety of goodness-of-fit indices: chi-square
value (X2 ) and significance, the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis index
(TLI), the standardized root-mean-squared residual (SRMR), and the root-mean-square
error of approximation (RMSEA). A large and statistically significant (p < .05) chi-
square value suggests that the model is a poor fit for the data (there is a statistically
significant divergence between the sample and the fitted covariance matrices). Hu and
Bentler's (1999) recommended cutoff values for each additional goodness-of-fit index
were utilized in order to reduce the risk of rejecting a model which correctly represents
the relationship between constructs in the population (Type 1) and of retaining a model
which is incorrectly specified (Type II) error. Specifically, criteria for model retention
were CFI and TLI values above .95, an SRMR value below .08, and an RMSEA value
below.06.
The various goodness-of-fit indices for the hypothesized model, tested in the
calibration sample, are presented in Table 3. The chi-square statistic value was large and
statistically significant, X2 (3, N = 134) = 48.07,p = .00. In addition, the various other
indices also suggested poor model fit with the data. Therefore, the hypothesized model
was rejected.
61
Model X2 df CFI TLI SRMR RMSEA 90% CI forP RMSEA
Hypothesized 48.07 3 .00 .67 -.66 .14 .34 (.26, .42)
modela
Revised modela 0.08 1 .77 1.00 1.10 .00 .00 (.00, .15)
Revised modelb 0.96 1 .33 1.00 1.00 .01 .00 (.00, .22)
Revised modelc 0.02 1 .89 1.00 1.04 .00 .00 (.00, .08)
Table 3. Summary of Model-Fit Statistics
Note. CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; SRMR = standardized
root-mean-squared residual; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation;
CI = confidence interval.
a Calibration sample (n = 134). b Validation sample (n = 140). c Full sample (n = 274).
Given the lack of prior research examining the causal relationship among the
variables under study, modifications to the hypothesized model were considered which
might improve the fit. In order to minimize the risk of improving fit but constructing a
substantively meaningless model (i.e., one that capitalizes on chance characteristics of
this sample and can not be replicated), only modifications consistent with theory and/or
prior research were considered (MacCallum, Roznowski, & Necowitz, 1992).
The modification indexes suggested six additional possible paths that might
improve the fit of the model. Of these, two paths were chosen which met the criteria of
being consistent with theory and/or prior research: (a) a path from enacted family support
for career development to perceived family support for career development, and (b) a
path from perceived family support for career development to subjective social status.
The path from enacted family support to perceived family support was consistent with
62
prior research finding a moderate, positive relationship between these variables (r = .53;
Way & Rossmann, 1996). Further, Barerra (1986) theorized perceptions of support and
enacted support as being two related but distinct subtypes of support. The hypothesis that
intentional parent interactions related to career development (i.e. enacted family support)
impacts an adolescent's subjective experience of support from parents around career
development (i.e. perceived family support) is plausible. Adding a path from perceived
family support to subjective social status was also consistent with theory. The construct
of differential status identity is meant to capture an individual's understanding of his or
her social standing in U.S. society, partly based on his or her access to social resources. A
perception of greater support from family for career development might be linked with
more perceived status and resources in social contexts.
The path analysis was rerun with the revised model in the calibration sample. The
results are presented in Table 3. The revised model fit the data significantly better than
the hypothesized model, X2 difference(2, N = 134) = 47.99,p < .01. Goodness-of-fit
indices for the revised model indicated good fit. To determine if the revised model could
be replicated, the revised model was rerun in the validation sample (n = 140). Again, the
goodness-of-fit indices indicated a good fit (see Tab1e3).
I performed a multiple group analysis to test for model invariance across the two
sample groups. This analysis compares two models: one in which the parameters are
allowed to vary across the groups and one in which the parameter values are constrained
to be equal between the two groups. A statistically significant chi-square value suggests
that the parameter estimates vary across groups. The results of the multiple group
63
analysis indicated that there were not any statistically significant differences in the path
coefficients between the calibration sample and the validation sample, X2(16, N = 274) =
20.70,p = .19. Therefore, as a final step, the revised model was run in the original,
combined sample (n = 274). The goodness-of-fit indices indicated a good fit (see Table3).
Direct and Indirect Effects
The squared multiple correlation coefficients (R2) indicated that the revised model
accounted for 32% of the variance in perceived family support, 1% of the variance in
enacted family support, 23% of the variance in subjective social status, 16% of the
variance in career decision self-efficacy, and 39% of the variance in career outcome
expectations. Figure 3 shows the revised model, including associated standardized
parameter estimates and their statistical significance. Table 4 provides the unstandardized
parameter estimates for the model.
Subjective
Social Status
.51 ***
Career Decision
Self-Efficacy
Career Outcome
Expectations
.18**
.15*
.51 ***
Enacted Family
Support for Career
Development
Perceived Family
Support for Career
Development
------
---
--
Family of Origin
SES
Figure 3. Revised model predicting career decision self-efficacy and career-related outcome expectations.
Note. Values reflect standardized parameter coefficients. Paths which failed to reach statistical significance are shown with
dashed lines. SES = socioeconomic status.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
0\
+:>.
65
Unstandardize
d parameter
Path estimate (B) SE CR p
Enacted ~ SES 0.003 0.007 1.800 .072
Perceived support ~ SES 0.004 0.001 3.822 <.001
Perceived support ~ Enacted support 0.426 0.042 10.162 <.001
Subjective status ~ SES 0.005 0.002 2.920 .004
Subjective status ~ Perceived support 0.663 0.087 7.657 <.001
CDSE ~ Subjective status 0.312 0.065 4.771 <.001
CDSE ~ SES -0.002 0.002 -0.917 .359
CDSE ~ Perceived support 0.091 0.118 0.773 .439
CDSE ~ Enacted support 0.211 0.089 2.356 .018
COE ~ Perceived support 0.082 0.069 1.184 .236
COE ~ SES -0.003 0.001 -2.498 .012
COE ~ Subjective status 0.025 0.040 0.636 .525
COE ~ CDSE 0.349 0.035 9.885 <.001
COE ~ Enacted support 0.166 0.053 3.150 .002
Table 4. Unstandardized Parameter Estimates for Revised Model
Note. SES = socioeconomic status; CDSE = career decision self-efficacy; COE = career
outcome expectations.
66
Table 5 summarizes the standardized direct and indirect effects for the revised
model. Indirect effects involve mediation via one or more intervening variables (Meyers,
Gamst, & Guarino, 2006). When the effect of intervening variables was taken into
account, there were statistically significant indirect effects between SES and subjective
status (jJ = .10, P < .05) and between SES and career decision self-efficacy (jJ = .11, P <
.05). Significant indirect effects were also found between enacted support and subjective
status (jJ = .21, P < .05), career decision self-efficacy (jJ = .09, p < .05), and career
outcome expectations (jJ = .I7,p < .05); between perceived support and career decision
self-efficacy (jJ = .13, P < .05) and between perceived support and career outcome
expectations (jJ = .1I,p < .05); and between subjective status and career outcome
expectations (jJ = .I5,p < .05). The indirect effects between SES and perceived support
and between SES and career outcome expectations were not statistically significant.
Family Support as Moderator
I conducted further exploratory analyses to test the possibility that the effect of
family of origin SES on the career-related outcome variables might be moderated by
family support (rather than mediated as hypothesized in the original model). While no
direct effect was found for SES on career decision self-efficacy and only a small,
negative direct effect was found for SES on career outcome expectations, this analysis
was conducted in order to determine if the effect of socioeconomic status might reach
statistical significance at certain levels of family support.
67
Independent variable
Enacted Perceived Subjective
Dependent variable SES support support status CDSE
Enacted support
Direct .11
Indirect
Perceived support
Direct .19 .51
Indirect .06
Subjective status
Direct .16 .42
Indirect .10 .21
CDSE
Direct -.05 .16 .06 .30
Indirect .11 .09 .13
COE
Direct -.12 .18 .07 .04 .51
Indirect .08 .17 .11 .15
Table 5. Standardized Direct and Indirect Effects for Revised Model
Note. SES = socioeconomic status; CDSE = career decision self-efficacy; COE = career
outcome expectations. Dashes indicate that the effect does not exist in the model.
I first computed the interaction terms: SES*enacted family support and
SES*perceived family support. Four separate models were tested using Amos 9.0
(Arbuckle, 2005). In the first set of hypothesized models, perceived support and SES,
along with the interaction term (SES*perceived support), were included as potential
predictors of career decision self-efficacy (model 1) and of career outcome expectations
(model 2). In the second set of hypothesized models, enacted support and SES, along
with the interaction term (SES*enacted support), were included as potential predictors of
68
career decision self-efficacy (model 3) and of career outcome expectations (model 4). All
four models were run using the original, combined sample (n = 274).
The fit indices for each of the four models are provided in Table 6. The models
including perceived support as a possible moderating vmiable (model 1 and model 2)
were both rejected based on the fit indices. Additionally, in modell, none of the path
coefficients were statistically significant. In model 2, only the path from SES to career
outcome expectations reached statistical significance. This mirrors the results for the
revised mediational model tested previously.
The models including enacted support as a possible moderating variable (model 3
and model 4) were both rejected based on the fit indices as well. For each model, the
RMSEA value of .09 was above the suggested cutoff of .06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). While
an RMSEA value of .09 can be considered to reflect mediocre fit (BYrne, 2001), none of
the path coefficients for either model was statistically significant. Therefore, there was no
evidence for the possible moderating effect of family support.
Model X
2 df P CFI TLI SRMR RMSEA
Moderation model 1 17.23 1 .00 .99 .92 .10 .24
Moderation model 2 17.23 1 .00 .99 .92 .10 .24
Moderation model 3 3.22 1 .07 1.00 .99 .04 .09
Moderation model 4 3.22 1 .07 1.00 .99 .05 .09
Table 6. Summary of Moderation Model-Fit Statistics
Note. CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; SRMR = standardized
root-mean-squared residual; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation.
69
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to better understand the role of the family of origin
in the career development of college students. Specifically, I sought to examine the
influences of social class background and family support for career development and how
they interact to influence career development outcomes. Family social class background
was examined using both a traditional measure of objective socioeconomic status and a
newly available measure of subjective status, in order to assess their relative impact. The
social-cognitive variables of career decision-making self-efficacy and career outcome
expectations were selected as the outcome variables for this study.
Based on prior research and the dual lenses of SCCT and social capital theory, I
expected that higher family SES would be associated with higher career decision-making
self-efficacy and career outcome expectations. I also hypothesized that perceptions of
greater social status would be associated with higher self-efficacy and outcome
expectations. Given that SCCT highlights the influence of appraisals of one's context, I
expected that subjective status would be the more powerful predictor of both outcome
variables. Finally, I hypothesized that both perceived and enacted family support for
career development would mediate the relationship between social class background and
the outcome variables and that higher levels of support would be associated with higher
70
levels of career-related self-efficacy and outcome expectations, regardless ofthe level of
social class background. In this section, I summarize the findings of this study and
discuss the results in the context ofthe existing career development literature. Findings
are organized according to my five research questions. I then discuss the strengths and
limitations of the study and implications for research and practice.
Influence o/Social Status
Family o/Origin Socioeconomic Status
I hypothesized that there would be a significant, positive relationship between
family SES and career-related self-efficacy and between family SES and outcome
expectations. Results did not support this hypothesis. The coefficient for the path between
SES and career decision self-efficacy was not statistically significant, meaning that SES
did not have a direct effect on this variable in the present sample. There was, however, a
small, statistically significant, indirect effect on self-efficacy, with SES operating through
perceived family support and subjective social status.
A number ofprior reviews of the literature have concluded that SES is a powerful
influence on the career development process and its outcomes (Brown et aI., 1996; Fouad
& Brown, 2000; Schulenberg, Vondracek, & Crouter, 1984; Whiston & Keller, 2004b).
Therefore, the lack of a direct relationship in this study is somewhat surprising. However,
the finding echoes some earlier research studies in which SES exerted only a small or
non-statistically significant influence on career-related outcome variables (Ali &
Saunders, 2006; Penick & Jepsen, 1992; Poole et aI., 1991). It also replicates prior
71
findings in which SES exerted an indirect effect through variables related to family
process (e.g., Way & Rossmann, 1996).
In SCCT, SES background is considered one of the distal inputs shaping the
context in which decision-making occurs. A number of the past studies in which an effect
for SES was found were conducted with high school students (e.g., Hannah & Kahn,
1989; Lauver & Jones, 1991; Rojewski & Kim, 2003). It may be that the impact of distal
contextual affordances, like SES, declines with time and with the entry into a college
environment, in which - at least theoretically - access to some types of helping resources
(e.g., career counseling or academic support services) becomes equalized. These results
must be interpreted with caution, however, given that the sample for this study was
predominantly Euro-American.
Past studies have shown that ethnic minority students perceive higher career-
related and educational barriers than ethnic majority students and have lower self-
efficacy for coping with these barriers (Luzzo & McWhirter, 2001; McWhirter, 1997;
McWhirter, Torres, Salgado, & Valdez, 2007). Ethnic differences in levels of career-
related self-efficacy have also been found, with non-majority students having lower self-
efficacy levels (Lauver & Jones, 1991). Therefore, the equalizing effects associated with
college entry may be less powerful for groups that have greater relative disadvantage. As
Whiston and Keller (2004b) have pointed out, the number of studies focused on
understanding the impact of family structure variables (e.g., single-parent status or
socioeconomic background) seems to have declined in the past twenty years. Therefore, a
call to research and better understanding of the variability in findings seems warranted.
---------------------------
72
The coefficient for the path between SES and career outcome expectations was
small and negative. In this sample, outcome expectations fell as SES rose. Although the
relationship was weak, this finding was unexpected given that SCCT predicts that lower
SES will result in reduced outcome expectations.
Characteristics of this particular sample may be responsible for this result. In
particular, all participants had already achieved college admission and had experience
with success in navigating the requirements of college life. Given this context, it may be
that participants from low SES backgrounds expected better outcomes given their proven
ability to overcome barriers to educational advancement. In addition, participants had
likely been exposed to modeling by peers from similar status backgrounds. Thus, recent
performance accomplishments and vicarious experiences may have been a more powerful
influence on participants' outcome expectations, as compared with distal family
background status variables. Research has shown performance accomplishments to be the
most powerful influence on an individual's self-efficacy level; however, no such studies
have yet been conducted related to assessing the relative power of influences on outcome
expectations (Fouad & Guillen, 2006).
Subjective Social Status
I hypothesized that there would be a significant, positive relationship between
subjective status and career-related self-efficacy and between subjective status and
outcome expectations. Results were partially consistent with this hypothesis. There was a
moderate, positive, statistically-significant relationship between subjective social status
and career decision self-efficacy. No direct relationship was found between subjective
73
status and career outcome expectations. However, there was a statistically-significant
indirect effect on outcome expectations, with subjective status operating through self-
efficacy.
The finding of a direct relationship between subjective status and self-efficacy is
in line with initial studies examining the influence ofDSIS on social-cognitive outcome
variables (Thompson & Subich, 2006). The mechanism of action linking these two
variables remains unclear. The DSIS measures an individual's comparison of him or
herselfto others in U.S. society in terms of relationship with and access to economic
resources, prestige, and power. Self-efficacy is theorized to be influenced by four primary
sources - performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and
physiological responses - which do not directly relate to DSIS constructs (Bandura,
1986). It may be that self perceptions of lower social standing results in feelings of
powerlessness within society, and that this sense of powerlessness is accompanied by a
lowered sense of efficacy for making decisions related to choosing a career - a choice
which potentially will contribute to later social standing in society. Further, it may be that
perceptions of social status reflect true disparities in access to resources. The link
between these two variables could then be reflective of fewer vicarious experiences of
seeing others in one's social group succeed or model a positive career decision-making
process, less opportunity for performance accomplishments, less supportive verbal
persuasion from others in the individual's social system, and the physiological responses
associated with social standing (e.g., higher salivary cortisol levels for low SES children;
Lupien, King, Meaney, & McEwen, 2001).
74
The finding of an indirect relationship between subjective status and outcome
expectations suggests that the influence of subjective status on outcome expectations
operates through self-efficacy beliefs. SCCT hypothesizes that self-efficacy influences
outcome expectations, with expectations of positive outcomes increasing as beliefs in
efficacy rise. Differences in perception of social standing may have a greater effect on the
contributors to self-efficacy (e.g., performance accomplishments) than on those related to
outcome expectations (symbolic thinking, vicarious experiences, and incentive value;
Bandura, 1977, 1986). For instance, those who perceive themselves as having a lower
social standing may be just as able to imagine positive consequences of their career
choices; however, it is their self-efficacy that is directly affected by a lack of access to
resources - indirectly lowering their outcome expectations when compared to peers who
perceive themselves as having a higher social standing. Given the results showing both
direct and indirect influences on social-cognitive variables, this study provides further
evidence for the relevance of examining subjective status as a contributor to the career
development process, and for exploring the ways in which perceptions of contextual
affordances influence social-cognitive variables.
Relative Impact ofObjective & Subjective Social Status
I hypothesized that an individual's perceptions of his or her status would have a
stronger relationship with career-related self-efficacy and with outcome expectations than
would an individual's objective status. This hypothesis was partially supported. As
discussed previously, subjective status had a moderate, direct effect on career decision
self-efficacy, and a small, indirect effect on outcome expectations. Socioeconomic status
75
did not have a direct relationship with self-efficacy, but SES did have a small, indirect
effect on self-efficacy and a small, direct effect on outcome expectations. The strongest
direct and indirect relationships with the outcome variables were for subjective status as
compared to SES.
These findings replicate research by Thompson and Subich (2006, 2007) utilizing
the relatively new DSIS measure and demonstrating its ability to provide a unique
contribution, beyond traditional measures of status. This study provides further support
for the superiority of subjective measures of social status and the need to go beyond the
traditional measures of social class that have dominated the psychological literature (Liu
et aI., 2004). It also suggests that perceptions of the environment may be more influential
than objective aspects, and that proximal contextual factors may be more influential than
distal ones. SES in the family of origin captures the individual's environment growing
up; however, subjective status perceptions capture the individual's current experience of
themselves in the social hierarchy - infonned by family status background, but shaped
too by more recent changes in access to resources.
The results of this study suggest that increasing student access to certain types of
resources may positively impact career-related outcome variables. Students had higher
career decision self-efficacy and outcome expectations when they perceived themselves
as having greater access to economic, social, and power resources. Subjective status
views, as measured in this study, include relative access to resources such as health and
dental care, monetary savings, and contacts in positions of power. Thus, while past
research has examined access to economic resources (via studies utilizing SES as a
76
variable) and access to social support, this study implicates a broader array of resources
as having an impact on the career development and indicates that including an
examination of the impact of a wider range of resources could be useful.
Influence ofFamily Support
Enacted Family Support
I hypothesized that enacted family support for career development would mediate
the relationship between social status and career-related self-efficacy and between social
status and outcome expectations. I also hypothesized that students who report higher
levels of enacted family support for career development would experience higher levels
of career-related self-efficacy and outcome expectations, regardless oftheir level of
social status. These hypotheses were partially supported by the data. SES levels did not
influence enacted family support levels, as reported by participants. Thus, there was no
evidence that enacted family support mediated the relationship between SES and the
outcome variables. There was also no evidence for enacted family support moderating the
relationship between SES and outcome variables.
The lack of differences in enacted family support by SES level affirms prior
research findings showing that SES explains very little of the variance in parent
involvement in the career development process of adolescents (e.g., Trusty, Watts, &
Erdman, 1997). Certain parent behaviors meant to shape children's career decision-
making processes may be universal across SES groups and may be representative of the
broader U.S. culture (versus cultural norms based on social standing) or may vary based
on family-specific norms that are unrelated to social standing. For example, the enacted
77
family support measure includes items such as "My family always emphasized the
importance ofhard work and doing one's best" and "My family stressed that I must be
responsible for my own actions." Such parent or family behaviors appear to be
unconnected to social standing based on the results ofthis study.
Enacted family support for career development had a weak, direct effect on both
outcome variables. This finding affinns the impact of social support in the career
development process and is reflective of a major theme in the career development
literature, namely that support from parents and family is a positive influence for youth
(Whiston & Keller, 2004b). While the correlations between enacted support and each
outcome variable were moderate, the path coefficients in the final model were only weak.
The weak nature of the relationships may be the result of the consideration of other
potentially important variables in the model - variables which have not previously been
included in such studies.
Enacted family support also had an indirect effect on both outcome variables,
operating through perceived family support and subjective social status. Enacted family
support had a strong, direct effect on perceptions of family support and a moderate,
indirect effect on subjective status. Thus, intention behaviors on the part of parents or
family members help shape not only the individual's perception of family support for the
career development process but also the general perception of social standing for the
student. Perceived family support and enacted family support were only moderately
correlated. Similar to past findings, this suggests that these are different constructs, and
supports Barrera's (1986) distinction between the two.
78
Perceived Family Support
I hypothesized that perceptions of family support for career development would
mediate the relationship between social status and career-related self-efficacy and
between social status and outcome expectations. I also hypothesized that students who
perceive higher levels of family support for career development would experience higher
levels of career-related self-efficacy and outcome expectations, regardless of their level
of social status. These hypotheses were partially supported by the data. The influence of
family of origin SES on career decision self-efficacy operated indirectly through
perceived family support and subjective social status. Thus, perceptions of family support
did operate as a mediator for the relationship between SES and one of the outcome
variables. However, there were no direct relationships between perceptions of family
support and either outcome variable. There was also no evidence for perceived family
support moderating the relationship between SES and the outcome variables.
The finding that perceived family support for career development was directly
influenced by family SES mirrors past findings suggesting that levels of family support
might vary by social status (e.g., Blustein et aI., 2002; Way & Rossmann, 1996).
However, in this study, family SES was only linked to perceptions of family support but
not to enacted family support. The finding that only perceived family support was
influenced by SES level in the family of origin suggests that participants of different SES
backgrounds did not experience different amounts of career-related interaction with their
parents, but rather may have perceived less attitudinal or emotional support during the
process.
79
Influenced itself by family SES, perceived family support directly influenced
subjective status perceptions and indirectly influenced career decision self-efficacy. The
finding of an impact on career decision self-efficacy supports prior research which has
linked perceived support with this outcome for adolescents (e.g., Gushue & Whitson,
2006; Turner et aI., 2004; Turner & Lapan, 2002). The level of perceived family support
was directly related to subjective social status, and the link was moderate and statistically
significant. Thus, perceptions of greater support from the family were related to higher
social status perceptions. This finding shows the powerful impact of the family in shaping
an individual's perception of social standing and perceived relationship to the rest of the
social hierarchy. It also suggests that family support acts as a protective factor for
individuals who grow up with limited access to other types of resources.
Strengths & Limitations
This study makes an important contribution to the career development literature
by incorporating the quantitative measurement of social class as a subjective identity
variable rather than relying solely on a static, objective index of status. The results of this
study confirm that perception and interpretation of the environment are more powerful
influences on these social-cognitive outcomes than objective factors. Further, the study
expands understanding of contributors to the formation of status identity, specifically
illuminating the role of family support for career development in shaping a student's
perception of his or her status in society.
This study also addresses the need for research which might help shape
prevention and intervention efforts aimed at enhancing the career development process of
80
young adults. While the objective SES (i.e., parent occupation, education, income) of
students is not a viable focus of direct intervention for career counselors, family or parent
support potentially is subject to modification. In their review of the literature, Whiston
and Keller (2004b) noted the lack of information on parent behaviors linked with positive
career development outcomes. This study utilized a quantitative family support measure
originally developed by Way and Rossmann (1996) to capture specific behaviors
intended by parents to influence the career development process, based on the findings of
Young and Friesen's (1992) qualitative research with families. While the findings of this
study do not provide a view of which items in the measure might be most important to
the career development process, they do suggest that the behaviors measured had an
important indirect impact on career-related self-efficacy and outcome expectations.
Therefore, specific, helpful, parenting behaviors can be derived by examining the items
included in the measure.
An additional strength of the study is that it responds to the call for an
examination of how family status and family process interact in the career development
process for youth. This study utilized path analysis to look at status and process variables
in conjunction so as to better understand their mechanisms of action. A strength of path
analysis is that it allows for the estimation of both direct and indirect effects and the
estimation of the relative magnitude of different paths among variables. Using path
analysis, I was also able to test a hypothesized model capturing how these variables
might be expected to interact given prior research and theory. The final, resulting model
81
can be used in future research to continue to examine how status and process variables
act together to shape career development.
A weakness of the study is that the sample was largely Euro-American and
female. Existing research has suggested possible ethnic and sex differences for some of
the variables under study - although these findings have been mixed. For example, ethnic
differences in levels of career-related self-efficacy have been found in some studies, with
non-majority students having lower self-efficacy levels than their Euro-American peers
(Lauver & Jones, 1991); however, other studies have found the opposite (Chung, 2002).
It has also been suggested that family support may be a greater influence on the career
development of ethnic minority students (Whiston & Keller, 2004b). Additional research
will be necessary to confirm that the model produced in this study holds for more diverse
samples of students.
An additional weakness of the study related to the sample is that it was composed
solely of college students. The results may be less applicable to young adults from low
SES backgrounds as a result. While there was adequate variance in the SES of the
students who participated, the mean SES level for the sample was above the mean for the
general population. This has implications for the generalizability of the results, especially
to young adults who are not attending college.
This study was exploratory in nature. The original model was modified based on
the results of the path analysis. While care was taken to ensure that only modifications
consistent with prior research and theory were made, the danger still exists that the model
has been shaped by chance characteristics ofthis particular sample and may not be
82
replicable in a separate sample. It will be important to attempt to replicate these findings
in additional, diverse samples.
A final limitation to the present study is that it was not longitudinal in nature and
it relied exclusively on self-report data. The data is correlational, and therefore,
conclusions cannot be drawn about causation among the variables. In this study, college-
age participants were asked to think about their experiences during their high school
years and to report parent occupations and family support levels from that time. Support
for the model generated from this study could be strengthened by the collection of
longitudinal data following students from high school to college and by inclusion of
measures which solicit the input of other reporters (e.g., family members' reports of
support given for career development). This would also allow for conclusions to be
drawn about causation and reinforce the need for prevention and intervention efforts in
response to the findings.
Implications for Practice
The results of this study confirmed the impact of not only family of origin SES
but also family support on career development outcome variables. Based on the model
developed and tested in this study, these influences partially operate through perceptions
of social standing. This suggests that prevention and intervention efforts should focus on
both increasing family support and increasing access to the other types of resources
implicated in shaping subjective status.
Increasing parent and family involvement in the vocational development of
adolescents is an important goal for career counselors. Young and colleagues (Young et
83
aI., 2001) have proposed conceptualizing parent-child interactions around career
development as a family project, a set of goal-directed activities which might be
enhanced during career counseling. I recommend that practitioners consider multiple
types of support when encouraging potential family contributions. Education and training
on how to provide effective career development-related support could also be offered to
parents and family members. This work with family members could aim to ensure that
they are addressing the variety of needs of youth engaged in the career development
process - from providing information about different career options, to showing interest
in and being willing to have conversations around decision-making, to helping to
highlight strengths or talents, to encouraging goal pursuit, or to providing assistance in
identifying sources of additional information or support.
Further, as part of supporting family members in their attempts to help youth in
the career development process, family members could themselves be invited to
participate in career-development-related activities typically offered solely to adolescents
or young adults. These joint activities with family and youth could provide the base for
vicarious learning experiences for the adolescent, at the same time as helping to illustrate
and encourage family support. A current and more widespread example of this is events
like "Take Your Daughter or Son to Work Day." Finally, as part of encouraging family
involvement, professionals might provide resources to family members in order to better
allow the family to aid in the adolescent's career exploration. Examples of resources or
events, which might typically be only directed towards the adolescent, are access to
------------------------
84
online career exploration sites, interest and values assessment tools, college planning
discussions, and career fairs.
This study also highlights the role of other resources in shaping perceived social
standing and indirectly impacting career development outcomes. The wide variety of
resources implicated in shaping status identity merit consideration as part of prevention
and intervention efforts. Within the category of economic or material resources, this
could include increasing student access to health or dental care, to the use of computers,
or to quality education - as examples. Within the categories of prestige or power
resources, this might include increasing student connection with contacts in positions of
power, increasing student ability to influence their social context (e.g., via school
government), or empowering students toward efforts to influence state or federal laws or
policies. While these types of efforts are not typically linked to student career
development, all have potential impacts on perceptions of social standing and indirectly
on career development outcomes according to the results of this study.
Research has supported the effectiveness of career-related intervention programs
designed to target sources of self-efficacy expectations (e.g., vicarious learning; Gainor,
2006). The implications for practice presented here provide additional ideas to shape such
programs. Interventionists have chosen the goal of increasing self-efficacy - whether in
the domain of career decision-making, a specific occupational area, or a specific
academic subject - due to the substantial support in the literature for its important impact
on the career development process (Gainor). Perceived self-efficacy has been linked to a
variety of outcomes, including women's pursuit oftraditionally male occupations (Betz
----------------------------
85
& Hackett, 1983), adolescents' career interests (Turner et aI., 2004), and types of careers
considered (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 2001). These findings speak to
the importance of undertaking prevention and intervention efforts aimed at shaping
career-related self-efficacy, and this study has provided new information about how
family support and access to resources impact career decision-making self-efficacy in
particular.
Implications for Research
The modified path model created in this study needs to be tested in other samples
to ensure that the changes were not simply representative of these particular participants.
It would also be useful for future tests of the model to include more diverse samples with
regard to sex, ethnicity, and college attendance. With longitudinal data, similar findings
would present an even stronger case for the practice implications discussed here.
The findings of this study suggest the importance of both economic and social
resources, in the form of support, in the career development process for youth. I
recommend that future research explore each type of resource in greater depth, so that
prevention and intervention efforts can be shaped accordingly. In particular, given the
importance of social support to the outcomes studied here, it would be useful to examine
which types of support might be most impactful for youth across levels of subjective
social status. This could include examining which of Tardy's four types of support (i.e.,
instrumental, appraisal, emotional, and informational) is the strongest contributor to
career-related outcomes. It could also include an examination of specific parent behaviors
86
and specific aspects of the environment in tenns ofresources (i.e., economic social,
power) to detennine which contribute most to the career development of young adults.
The results of this study highlight the importance of subjective status in the career
development process. They suggest the utility of continuing to refine measures of
subjective social status and of incorporating such measures more regularly in career-
related studies. This research expands on the work ofThompson and Subich (2006, 2007)
examining the relationship of subjective status with other input and outcome variables.
The results of the present study identified not only family of origin SES but also
perceived family support as shaping perceived social standing. Future research should
continue to explore what other environmental variables might contribute to the fonnation
of subjective status - particularly those variables which might be appropriate targets of
prevention or intervention efforts.
Summary & Conclusions
The family of origin plays a pivotal role in the career development process
(Brown, 2004; Whiston & Keller, 2004b). Research has long linked socioeconomic status
in the family of origin with important career development variables (Brown et aI., 1996).
These links have shown that low SES is associated with a host of undesirable outcomes:
lower career decision-making self-efficacy, lower occupational and educational
aspirations, and greater perceived barriers to career success. Until recently, no studies
existed which examined subjective status or social class identity and its impact on the
career development process. As social class is recognized to be one of several, core,
interacting aspects of identity, its influence on the career development process is
87
important for vocational psychologists and career counselors to understand. Further, there
have been only a handful of studies examining the dynamic interplay of social status in
the family of origin and family process factors (e.g., parenting behaviors and relational
styles; Whiston & Keller, 2004b). Better understanding the relative contributions of
family process can help shape prevention and intervention efforts.
The purpose of this study was to better understand the role ofboth family status
and family process in the career development of young adults. Status was measured using
both a traditional, objective index and a more recently developed subjective measure.
Family process was examined using the variables of perceived and enacted family
support. A path analysis was conducted to explore the relationship among these variables
and their relative contributions to the career development outcomes of career decision-
making self-efficacy and career-related outcome expectations. The results of the study
provide further evidence of the importance of the family in the career development
process. While the influence of family SES, enacted family support, and perceived family
support on outcomes was primarily indirect (these variables operated through subjective
status), there was a moderate, direct relationship between subjective social status and
career decision-making self-efficacy. Further, this study presented additional reliability
and validity evidence for assessment instruments measuring family support, subjective
social status, and career-related outcome expectations.
I provided several implications for both practice and research. With regard to
career counseling and support of the career development process, I recommend a greater
emphasis on connecting students with social contacts in positions of power and on
88
involving parents in the career development process of their children. In future research,
the modified path model specified in this study needs to be tested in additional samples.
Additionally, I recommend that future studies begin to examine which types of family
support (e.g., informational, emotional, appraisal, or instrumental support) and which
parenting behaviors are most important to the fonnation of subjective status, and which
contribute indirectly to the formation of career-related self-efficacy. Exploration of other
variables that might contribute to the formation of subjective status is also recommended.
APPENDIX A
INFORMED CONSENT
89
90
Web Survey Infonned Consent Document
Invitation to Participate: You are invited to participate in a dissertation research study
conducted by Jennifer Metheny, M.S., a doctoral candidate in Counseling Psychology at
the University of Oregon. The following infonnation is provided to help you make an
infonned decision about whether or not you want to participate in this study. Please feel
free to email me with questions: jmetheny@uoregon.edu.
Eligibility: You are eligible to participate in this study if you are a current college
student, are between the ages of 18 and 22, and you are able to write and speak English.
Purpose of the Study: The purpose of this study is to better understand how family
experiences influence the process of choosing and pursuing a career.
Explanation of Procedures: If you decide to participate, you will fill out a web-based
questionnaire, which should take about 25-35 minutes to complete. Once you have
completed the questionnaire, your responses will be electronically sent back to me over a
secure server. The infonnation that you provide (e.g., name [optional], contact
infonnation [optional], and survey answers) will remain completely confidential and will
be stored in a secure, password-protected server on the Internet. If you choose to provide
your identifying infonnation (name and contact infonnation) in order to obtain the gift
card, this infonnation will not be linked in any way with your survey answers.
Potential Risks and Discomforts: On occasion some people may experience some
distress when completing psychological questionnaires. If you should feel distressed at
any time during the study, you may email me and I will email you a list of mental health
resources and referrals. You may also withdraw from the study at any time without any
consequences. You may also skip particular questions which you choose to not answer.
Potential Benefits: The benefits you may personally receive from participating in this
study include the opportunity to make a significant contribution to research and
knowledge on college students' career development. If you are one ofthe first 300
students to submit a completed questionnaire, you will also have the opportunity to
receive a $5 Starbuck's gift card. If you so choose, you will submit your contact
infonnation (name, address, and email address) in addition to the answers on your survey
battery. Your identifying and contact infonnation will not be linked in any way to your
answers in the survey battery. That is, your contact infonnation and survey responses are
sent to me separately. After every 30 days, I will mail participants who are one of the first
300 respondents a $5 Starbuck's gift card.
Voluntary Participation and Withdrawal: Your participation is voluntary. You may
withdraw your consent and discontinue participation at anytime without penalty. You
may also skip any question that you do not wish to answer.
91
Assurance of Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential because your
name or other identifying information will not be attached to the answers that you
provide. I will store confidential survey data on a secure computer server, protected by a
login ID and password available only to me. Any identifying participant information will
be kept on a separate, secure server. Contact information will be used only for those who
want to receive the $5 Starbuck's gift cards. All downloaded data will be stored on a
password-protected computer and/or in a locked file cabinet to further ensure
confidentiality. The information obtained in this study may be published in a scientific
journal or presented at scientific meetings for which only generalized groups of data will
be used, and therefore in no way will reveal your identity.
Rights of Research Participants: Your rights as a research participant have been
explained to you. If you have any additional questions about this study, please contact
Jennifer Metheny, M.S. at (541) 346-3227 or Ellen McWhirter, Ph.D. (541) 346-2443,
Dissertation Chair and Faculty Advisor, at the Counseling Psychology and Human
Services Department, 5251 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403. If you have any
questions concerning your rights as a research participant, contact the Office for the
Protection of Human Subjects, 5237 University of Oregon, Eugene, 97403, (541) 346-
2510. You may print out a copy of this Informed Consent Form for your records.
Submission of the online questionnaire will be considered your consent to participate.
BY COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE, YOU AGREE THAT YOU
UNDERSTAND THE PROCEDURES DESCRIBED ABOVE AND THAT YOU
AGREE and CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STUDY.
If you have read and understand the above statements, please click on the "Continue"
button below to indicate your consent to participate in this study.
APPENDIXB
INSTRUMENTS
92
93
Demographic Questionnaire
Instructions: These questions request general information about you. Remember that the
information you provide is anonymous. Please respond to the items below by either
indicating your response or selecting the one category that best represents you. You may
skip any question(s) that you feel uncomfortable answering.
1) I am currently a student at a
__ Four-year college or university
__ Two-year college
__ Community college
__ Other (please specify) _
2) U.S. area of current residence: (pick the option that best applies)
Northwest
--
Southwest
Midwest
Northeast
--
Southeast
--
South
--
__ Other (please specify) _
3) Age:
4) Sex: Male
-----
Female
-----
_____Transgender
5) If you are an international student, please indicate your country of origin:
6) Race/Ethnicity: please mark all that apply
Black or African-American
--
White or Euro-American
--
Hispanic / Latino(a)
Asian or Asian-American
Native American or Alaskan Native
--
Pacific Islander
--
Middle Eastern
--
__ Other (please specify) _
94
7) Dependent Status:
__ I am currently partially financially dependent upon one or more of my
parents/guardians.
__ I am currently fully financially dependent upon one or more of my
parents/guardians.
__ I am currently financially independent.
__ I am currently in a relationship in which I share financial responsibility or my
partner provides for me (romantic partnership or marriage).
Family Background Information
The following questions refer to your experiences growing up - specifically the years
during which you were in high school. For the purposes of this study, your "family" is
considered to be the household in which you spent most of your time. Ifyou experienced
more than one household (for instance, due to divorce or other circumstances), please
respond based on the household you considered to be your primary residence.
8) While in high school, I considered the social class status ofmy family to be:
__ poor or working poor
__ working class
lower middle class
--
middle class
--
__ upper middle class
__ upper class
9) While in high school, the approximate annual income of my family was:
__ not applicable or don't know
__ zero or less than $12,000
$12,000 to $25,000
__ $25,000 to 35,000
__ $35,000 to 75,000
__ $75,000 to 100,000
__ $100,000 to 300,000
Greater than $300,000
10) In high school, my parents/guardians' highest level of education: please be as specific
as possible, for example: "2 years ofhigh school"
mother
-------------
father
-------------
____________ other guardian (please specify) _
95
11) In high school, my parents/guardians' occupation or job: please be as specific as
possible
mother
------------
father
------------
other guardian (please specify)
------------ ---------
96
Differential Status Identity Scale
Economic Scale I
Directions: Compare yOUfselfto what you think the average citizen of the United States is like.
Please indicate how you compare to the average citizen in terms of the items below using the
following scale:
Very much Below average Equal Above average Very much
below average above average
-2 -1 0 +1 +2
For example, !fyou believe you are equal to the average u.s. citizen in terms ofthe financial
resources needed to afford additional educational experiences for your children (now or in the
future), you would mark "0" for item I below.
Very much Very much
below average above average
-2 +2
1. Ability to give your children (now or in the future) -2 -1 0 +1 +2
additional educational experiences like ballet, tap,
art/music classes, science camp, etc.
2. Ability to afford to go to the movies, restaurants, and/or -2 -1 0 +1 +2
the theater on a regular basis
3. Ability to join a health club/fitness center -2 -1 0 +1 +2
4. Ability to afford regular dental visits -2 -1 0 +1 +2
5. Ability to afford dry cleaning services on a regular basis -2 -1 0 +1 +2
6. Ability to travel recreationally -2 -1 0 +1 +2
7. Ability to travel overseas for business and/or pleasure -2 -1 0 +1 +2
8. Ability to shop comfortably in upscale department -2 -1 0 +1 +2
stores, such as Bloomingdales, Saks Fifth Avenue, or
Bameys
9. Potential for receiving a large inheritance -2 -1 0 +1 +2
10. Ability to secure loans with low interest rates -2 -1 0 +1 +2
11. Ability to hire professional money managers -2 -1 0 +1 +2
12. Ability to go to a doctor or hospital of your own -2 -1 0 +1 +2
choosing
13. Ability to hire others for domestic chores (e.g., cleaning, -2 -1 0 +1 +2
gardening, child care, etc.)
14. Ability to afford prescription medicine -2 -1 0 +1 +2
15. Ability to afford elective surgeries and/or high-cost -2 -1 0 +1 +2
medical examinations, such as MRls or CAT-scans
97
Economic Scale II
Directions: Compare what is available to you in terms of type and/or amount of resources to
what you believe is available to the average citizen of the United States. Please indicate how you
compare to the average citizen in terms of the type and amount of resources listed below using
the following scale:
Very much
below average
-2
Below average
-1
Equal
o
Above average
+1
Very much
above average
+2
For example, if you believe you are equal to the average U.S. citizen in home(s), you would mark
"0" for item 1 below.
Very much Very much
below average above average
-2 +2
1. Home(s) -2 -1 0 +1 +2
2. Land -2 -1 0 +1 +2
3. Stocks and bonds -2 -1 0 +1 +2
4. Money -2 -1 0 +1 +2
5.. Car(s) -2 -1 0 +1 +2
6. Computer(s) -2 -1 0 +1 +2
7. New appliances (washers, dryers, refrigerators, etc.) -2 -1 0 +1 +2
8. Amount of education -2 -1 0 +1 +2
9. Quality of high school(s) attended -2 -1 0 +1 +2
10. Life insurance -2 -1 0 +1 +2
11. Quality of health insurance -2 -1 0 +1 +2
12. Savings -2 -1 0 +1 +2
13. Maids or cooks -2 -1 0 +1 +2
14. Close connections to the rich and powerful -2 -1 0 +1 +2
15. Quality of health care -2 -1 0 +1 +2
98
Social Scales L IL and III
Directions: Indicate your response to each item below using the following scale:
Much less
-2
Less
-1
Equal
o
More
+1
Much less
-2
Muchmore
+2
Muchmore
+2
Compared to how society values or appreciates the average U.S. citizen, how does society value
or appreciate your... ?
1. Ethnic/racial group -2 -1 0 +1 +2
2. Socioeconomic group -2 -1 0 +1 +2
3. Nationality -2 -1 0 +1 +2
Compared to how society values or appreciates the average U.S. citizen, how does society value
or appreciate the ... ?
1. Neighborhood in which you live -2 -1 0 +1 +2
2. Type of home you live in -2 -1 0 +1 +2
3. Places where you shop -2 -1 0 +1 +2
4. Places where you relax and have fun -2 -1 0 +1 +2
5. Type and amount of education you have -2 -1 0 +1 +2
6. Type of car you drive -2 -1 0 +1 +2
7. Position you hold in society -2 -1 0 +1 +2
Compared to how society values or appreciates the average U.S. citizen, how does society value
or appreciate your... ?
1. Physical appearance -2 -1 0 +1 +2
2. Occupational success -2 -1 0 +1 +2
3. Financial success -2 -1 0 +1 +2
4. Physical abilities -2 -1 0 +1 +2
5. Economic background -2 -1 0 +1 +2
99
Power Scale
Directions: Compare yourself to what you think the average citizen of the United States is like.
Please indicate how you compare to the average citizen in your ability to do the things below
using the following scale:
Very much Below average Equal Above average Very much
below average above average
-2 -1 0 +1 +2
For example, if you believe you are equal to the average U.S. citizen in your ability to be
respected and heard by others in your community, you would mark "0" for item 1 below.
Very much Very much
below average above average
-2 +2
1. Contact people in high places for a job or position -2 -1 0 +1 +2
2. Contact people who can help you get out oflegal -2 -1 0 +1 +2
problems
3. Start in a high-profile position of responsibility -2 -1 0 +1 +2
4. Get information and services not available to the general -2 -1 0 +1 +2
public
5. Control how your group is represented in history, media, -2 -1 0 +1 +2
and the public
6. Receive a fair trial -2 -1 0 +1 +2
7. Become a millionaire by legal means -2 -1 0 +1 +2
8. Control the type and amount of work of others -2 -1 0 +1 +2
9. Control the salary and compensation of others -2 -1 0 +1 +2
10. Influence the laws and regulations of your state or -2 -1 0 +1 +2
city/town
11. Influence state or federal educational policies -2 -1 0 +1 +2
12. Influence the policies of a corporation -2 -1 0 +1 +2
13. Influence where and when stores are built and operated -2 -1 0 +1 +2
14. Influence where and when waste treatment facilities are -2 -1 0 +1 +2
built and operated
15. Influence the decision-making of foundations, charities, -2 -1 0 +1 +2
hospitals, museums, etc.
100
Family Support Measures
Family ofOrigin Career Development Support
Directions: Please answer the following questions about the family you grew up in.
1. To what extent has the family you grew up in given you financial support for your
education and training?
a. no financial support b. a little financial c. considerable
support financial support
2. To what extent has the family you grew up in given you information and contacts that
helped you with your occupational choices?
a. no information b. a little information
and/or contacts and/or a few contacts
c. considerable
information and/or
many contacts
3. To what extent has the family you grew up in given you emotional support for your
educational training?
a. no emotional b. a little emotional c. considerable
support support emotional support
4. To what extent has the family you grew up in given you maintenance support (time
and study space, help with school work, college applications, etc.)?
a. no maintenance b. a little maintenance c. considerable
support support maintenance support
5. To what extent has the family you grew up in shown an interest in and/or participated
in your education?
a. no interest and/or b. a little interest c. considerable interest
participation and/or participation and/or participation
6. To what extent has the family you grew up in helped you understand your strengths
and/or talents?
a. no help b. a little help c. considerable help
understanding understanding understanding
7. To what extent has the family you grew up in encouraged you to pursue your goals
and/or plans for the future?
a. no encouragement b. a little
encouragement
c. considerable
encouragement
101
b. a little availability
8. To what extent has the family you grew up in been available if you want to talk about
a problem?
a. no availability c. considerable
availability
9. To what extent has the family you grew up in been helpful when you have questions
about educational or career-related issues?
a. no help with b. a little help with c. considerable help
questions questions with questions
10. To what extent has the family you grew up in expressed pride in your educational or
career-related accomplishments?
a. no expressed pride b. a little expressed
pride
c. considerable
expressed pride
102
Parent Intentional Career-Related Interactions
Directions: Families vary in the ways they interact with each other. Indicate the degree to which
these statements describe the family you grew up in. Use this 4-level scale to determine your
response:
Very untrue for my
parent(s)/guardian(s)
or family
1
Fairly untrue for my
parent(s)/guardian(s)
or family
2
Fairly true for my
parent(s)/guardian(s)
or family
3
Very
untrue
1
Very true for my
parent(s)/guardian(s)
or family
4
Very
true
4
1. My family helped me to develop job skills which
are useful now.
2. My family always emphasized the importance of
hard work and doing one's best.
3. My family tried to protect me from experiences
which might limit my development.
4. My family encouraged me to be my own person;
to not give in to peer pressure or be overly
dependent on others.
5. My family has goals and needs that they wanted to
achieve through me.
6. My family stressed that males and females have
similar abilities and career alternatives.
7. My family tried to make sure that the adults and
children in our family got along well.
8. My family stressed the importance of accepting
differences among people and being helpful to
others.
9. My family tried to make me feel good about
myself and to develop confidence.
10. My family stressed that I must be responsible for
my own actions.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
103
Career Decision Self-Efficacy - Short Form
The Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale (CDSE-SF; Betz & Taylor, 2001; Betz, Klein,
& Taylor, 1996; Taylor & Betz, 1983) is a 25-item scale which utilizes a 5-point, Likert-
type response scale with response options ranging from no confidence at all (scored as 1)
to complete confidence (scored as 5). Respondents are asked to rate each of a series of
statements reflective of career-related decision-making tasks. Sample tasks are
"Determine what your ideal job would be," "Prepare a good resume," and "Choose a
career that will fit your lifestyle."
The CDSE-SF is a copyrighted measure. The CDSE materials and rights to use may be
purchased from Nancy E. Betz. Interested parties may obtain more information about the
instrument from the following:
Dr. Nancy Betz, Professor
Ohio State University
Department of Psychology
238 Townshend Hall
1885 Neil Avenue Mall
Columbus, OH 43210-1222
Phone: (614)292-8185
Email: betz.3@osu.edu
Vocational Outcome Expectations Scale
Directions: Please respond to each question by marking your answers along the 4-point scale
shown below:
104
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
1 4
1. My career planning will lead to a satisfying career 2 3 4
forme.
2. I will be successful in my chosen 2 3 4
career/occupation.
3. The future looks bright for me. 2 3 4
4. My talents and skills will be used in my 2 3 4
career/occupation.
5. I have control over my career decisions. 2 3 4
6. I can make my future a happy one. 2 3 4
7. I will get the job I want in my chosen career. 2 3 4
8. My career/occupation choice will provide the 2 3 4
income I need.
9. I will have a career/occupation that is respected in 2 3 4
our society.
10. I will achieve my career/occupational goals. 2 3 4
11. My family will approve ofmy career/occupation 2 3 4
choice.
12. My career/occupation choice will allow me to have 2 3 4
the lifestyle that I want.
105
REFERENCES
Adler, N. E., Epe1, E. Castellazzo, G.,& Ickovics, 1. (2000). Relationship of subjective
and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning:
Preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychology, 19,586-592.
Ali, S. R., McWhirter, E. H., & Chronister, K. M. (2005). Self-efficacy and vocational
outcome expectations for adolescents oflower socioeconomic status: A pilot
study. Journal ofCareer Assessment, 13,40-58.
Ali, S. R., & Saunders, J. L. (2006). College expectations of rural Appalachian youth: An
exploration of social cognitive career theory factors. Career Development
Quarterly, 55,38-51.
American Psychological Association. (2000). Resolution on poverty and socioeconomic
status. Retrieved August 14,2006, from http://www.apa.org/pi/urban/povres.html
Arbuckle, J. L. (2005). Amos 6.0 User's Guide. Spring House, PA: Amos Development
Corporation.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations ofthought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barerra, M., Jr. (1986). Distinctions between social support concepts, measures, and
models. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 14,413-455.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy
expectations to the selection of science-based college majors. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 23,329-345.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (2006). Career self-efficacy theory: Back to the future. Journal
ofCareer Assessment, 14,3-11.
Betz, N. E., & Luzzo, D. A. (1996). Career assessment and the Career Decision Making
Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal ofCareer Assessment, 4, 413-428.
Betz, N. E., & Taylor, K. M. (1994). Manualfor the Career Decision-Making Self-
Efficacy Scale. Columbus, OH: Author.
106
Betz, N. E., & Taylor, K. M. (2001). Manualfor the Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale
and the CDSE - Short Form. Unpublished manual.
Betz, N. E., Hammond, M. S., & Multon, K. D. (2005). Reliability and validity of five-
level response continua for the Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of
Career Assessment, 13, 131-149.
Betz, N. E., Klein, K., & Taylor, K. (1996). Evaluation ofa short form of the Career
Decision Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal ofCareer Assessment, 4,47-57.
Bloom, B. L. (1985). A factor analysis of self-report measures of family functioning.
Family Process, 24,225-239.
Blustein, D. L. (2001). The interface of work and relationships: Critical knowledge for
21st century psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 179-192.
Blustein, D. L., Chaves, A. P., Diemer, M. A., Gallagher, L. A., Marshall, K. G., Sirin,
S., & Bhati, K. S. (2002). Voices of the forgotten half: The role of social class in
the school-to-work transition. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 49, 311-323.
Blustein, D. L., Juntunen, C. L., & Worthington, R. L. (2000). The school-to-work
transition: Adjustment challenges of the forgotten half. In S. D. Brown & R. W.
Lent (Eds.), Handbook ofcounseling psychology (3rd ed., pp. 435-470). New
York: Wiley.
Blustein, D. L., Phillips, S. D., Jobin-Davis, K., Finkelberg, S. L., & Roarke, A. E.
(1997). A theory-building investigation ofthe school-to-work transition. The
Counseling Psychologist, 25,364-402.
Blustein, D. L. Prezioso, M., & Schultheiss, D. (1995). Attachment theory and career
development: Current status and future directions. The Counseling Psychologist,
23,416-432.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook oftheory
and research for the sociology ofeducation (pp. 241-258). New York:
Greenwood Press.
Brown, M. T. (2000). Blueprint for the assessment of socio-structural influences in career
choice and decision making. Journal ofCareer Assessment, 8,371-378.
Brown, M. T. (2004). The career development influence of family of origin:
Considerations ofrace/ethnic group membership and class. The Counseling
Psychologist, 32,587-595.
-------------------------
107
Brown, M. T., D'Agruma, H. D., Brown, A., Sia, A., Yamini-Diouf, Y., Porter, S., et al.
(2002). Differential status identity: Construct, measurement, and initial validation.
In Symposium presented during the annual convention ofthe American
Psychological Association, Chicago, Illinois.
Brown, M. T., Fukunaga, C., Umemoto, D., & Wicker, L. (1996). Annual review, 1990-
1996: Social class, work, and retirement behavior. Journal ofVocational
Behavior, 49, 159-189.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Chronister, K. M., & McWhirter, E. H. (2006). An experimental evaluation of two career
interventions for battered women. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 53, 151-
164.
Chung, Y. B. (2002). Career decision-making self-efficacy and career commitment:
Gender and ethnic differences among college students. Journal ofCareer
Development, 28,277-284.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale
development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309-319.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal
ofSociology, 94, S95-Sl20.
Constantine, M. G. (2002). The intersection of race, ethnicity, gender, and social class in
counseling: Examining selves in cultural contexts. Journal ofMulticultural
Counseling and Development, 30, 210-215.
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.
Crites, J. O. (1978). Career Maturity Inventory: Administration and use manual.
Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw Hill.
Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from
incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal ofthe Royal Statistical Society:
Series B (Methodological), 39, 1-38.
Diemer, M. A. (2007). Parental and school influences upon the career development of
poor youth of color. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 70,502-524.
108
Diemer, M. A. (2009). Pathways to occupational attainment among poor youth of color.
The Counseling Psychologist, 37,6-35.
Duncan, G. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., Yeung, W. J., & Smith, J. R. (1998). How much does
childhood poverty affect the life chances of children? American Sociological
Review, 63,406-423.
Ferry, T. R., Fouad, N. A., & Smith, P. L. (2000). The role of family context in a social
cognitive model for career-related choice behavior: A math and science
perspective. Journal o.[Vocational Behavior, 57,348-364.
Flores, L. Y, & O'Brien, K. M. (2002). The career development of Mexican American
adolescent women: A test of social cognitive theory. Journal 0.[Counseling
Psychology, 49, 14-27.
Fouad, N. A., & Brown, M. T. (2000). Role of race and social class in career
development: Implications for counseling psychology. In S. D. Brown & R. W.·
Lent (Eds.), Handbook 0.[counseling psychology (3rd ed., pp. 379-408). New
York: Wiley.
Fouad, N. A., & Guillen, A. (2006). Outcome expectations: Looking to the past and
potential future. Journal 0.[Career Assessment, 14, 130-142.
Fouad, N. A., & Smith, P. L. (1996). A test of a social cognitive model for middle school
students: Math and science. Journal o.[Counseling Psychology, 43,_338-346.
Frable, D. E. S. (1997). Gender, racial, ethnic, sexual, and class identities. Annual Review
o.[Psychology, 48, 139-162.
Gainor, K. A. (2006). Twenty-five years of self-efficacy in career assessment and
practice. Journal 0.[Career Assessment, 14, 161-178.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W., & Gall, J. P. (2003). Educational research: An introduction. New
York: Longmans
Gilbert, D., & Kahn, J. A. (1993). The American class structure: A new synthesis (4th
Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Goodman, E., Adler, N. E., Kawachi, 1., Frazier, A. L., Huang, B., & Colditz, G. A.
(2001). Adolescents' perceptions of social standing: Development and evaluation
of a new indicator. Pediatrics, 108(2). Retrieved August 30, 2001, from
http://www.pediatrics.orglcgi/content/full/108/2/e31
109
Gottfredson, L. S. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory of
occupational aspirations. Journal o/Counseling Psychology, 28,545-579.
Gottfredson, L. S. (1996). Gottfi'edson's theory of circumscription and compromise. In D.
Brown, L. Brooks, and Associates, Career choice and development (3rd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gushue, G. V., & Whitson, M. L. (2006). The relationship among support, ethnic
identity, career decision self-efficacy, and outcome expectations in African
American high school students. Journal o/Career Development, 33, 112-124.
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
o/Vocational Behavior, 61, 185-201.
Heppner, M. J., & Scott, A. B. (2004). From whence we came: The role of social class in
our families of origin. The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 596-602.
Hill, N. E., Ramirez, c., & Dumka, L. E. (2003). Early adolescents' career aspirations: A
qualitative study of perceived barriers and family support among low-income,
ethnically diverse adolescents. Journal o/Family Issues, 24, 934-959.
House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
House, J. S., Kahn, R. L., McLeod, J. D., & Williams, D. (1985). Measures and concepts
of social support. In S. Cohen & S. L. Syme (Eds.), Social Support and Health
(pp. 83-108). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
House, J. S., Umberson, D., & Landis, K. R. (1988). Structures and processes of social
support. Annual Review 0/Sociology, 14, 293-318.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 1-31.
Jacobs, J. A., Karen, D., & McClelland, K. (1991). The dynamics of young men's career
aspirations. Sociologicql Forum, 6, 609-639.
Juntunen, C. L., & Wettersten, K. B. (2006). Work hope: Development and initial
validation of a measure. Journal 0/Counseling Psychology, 53, 94-106.
110
Kenny, M. E., Blustein, D. L., Chaves, A., Grossman, 1. M., & Gallagher, L. A. (2003).
The role of perceived barriers and relational support in the educational and
vocational lives of urban high school students. Journal ofCounseling Psychology,
50,142-155.
Klem, L. (1995). Path analysis. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yamold (Eds.), Reading and
understanding multivariate statistics (pp. 65-97). Washington, D.C.: American
Psychological Association.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice ofstructural equation modeling. NY:
Guilford Press.
Lauver, P. J., & Jones, R. M. (1991). Factors associated with perceived career options in
American Indian, White, and Hispanic rural high school students. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 38, 159-166.
Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2006). On conceptualizing and assessing social cognitive
constructs in career research: A measurement guide. Journal ofCareer
Assessment, 14, 12-35.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive
theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 45, 79-122.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and barriers to
career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 47,
36-49.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Talleyrand, R., McPartland, E. B., Davis, T., Chopra, S. B., et
al. (2002). Career choice barriers, supports, and coping strategies: College
students' experiences. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 60,61-72.
Lin, N. (2000). Inequality in social capital. Contemporary Sociology, 29, 785-795.
Lindstrom, L., Doren, B., Metheny, J., Johnson, P., & Zane, C. (2007). Family structure
and process: Influences on post school outcomes for young adults with learning
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 73, 348-366.
Liu, W. M., Soleck, G., Hopps, J., Dunston, K., & Pickett, T. (2004). A new framework
to understand social class in counseling: The social class worldview and modem
classism theory. Journal ofMulticultural Counseling and Development, 32, 95-
122.
111
Liu, W. M., Ali, S. R., Soleck, G., Hopps, J., Dunston, K., & Pickett, T., Jr. (2004). Using
social class in counseling psychology research. Journal ofCounseling
Psychology, 51, 3-18.
Lott, B. (2002). Cognitive and behavioral distancing from the poor. American
Psychologist, 57, 100-110.
Lupien, S. J., King, S., Meaney, J., & McEwen, B. S. (2001). Can poverty get under your
skin? Basal cortisol levels and cognitive function in children from low and high
socioeconomic status. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 653-676.
Luzzo, D. A., & McWhilier, E. H. (2001). Sex and ethnic differences in the perception of
educational and career-related barriers and levels of coping efficacy. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 79,61-67.
MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model modifications in
covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalizing on chance.
Psychological Bulletin, Ill, 490-504.
McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American
Psychologist, 53, 185-204.
McWhirter, E. H. (1997). Perceived barriers to education and career: Ethnic and gender
differences. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 50, 124-140.
McWhirter, E. H., Hackett, G., & Bandalos, D. L. (1998). A causal model of the
educational plans and career expectations of Mexican American high school girls.
Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 45, 166-181.
McWhirter, E. H., & Paa, H. K. (1996). Predictors of high school girls' career and
educational aspirations. Paper presented during the annual convention ofthe
American Psychological Association, Toronto.
McWhirter, E. H., Rasheed, S., & Crothers, M. (2000). The effects of high school career
education on social-cognitive variables. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 47,
330-341.
McWhirter, E. H., Torres, D. M., Salgado, S., & Valdez, M. (2007). Perceived barriers
and postsecondary plans in Mexican American and White adolescents. Journal of
Career Assessment, 15, 119-138.
Mert1er, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2002). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods.
Los Angeles: Pyrczk.
112
Metheny, J., McWhirter, E. H., & O'Neil, M. (2008). Measuring perceived teacher
support and its influence on adolescent career development. Journal 0/Career
Assessment, 16, 218-237.
Meyers, L .S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2006). Applied multivariate research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mookherjee, H. N., & Hogan, W. (1981). Class consciousness among young rural
children. Journal o/Social Psychology, 114, 91-98.
Morrow, S. L., Gore, P. A., Jr., & Campbell, B. W. (1996). The application of a
sociocognitive framework to the career development of lesbian women and gay
men. Journal o/Vocational Behavior, 48, 136-148.
Nakao, K. & Tres, J. (1994). Updating occupational prestige and socioeconomic scores:
How the new measures measure up. Sociological Methodology, 24, 1-72.
National Center for Children in Poverty (2005). Who are America's poor children?
Retrieved February 3,2006, from http://www.nccp.org/pub_cpt05b.html
Ostrove, J. M., Adler, N. E., Kupperrnann, M., & Washington, A. E. (2000). Objective
and subjective assessments of socioeconomic status and their relationship to se1f~
rated health in an ethnically diverse sample of pregnant women. Health
Psychology, 19,613-618.
Paa, H. K., & McWhirter, E. H. (2000). Perceived influences on high school students'
current career expectations. The Career Development Quarterly, 49,29-44.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In Robinson, J. P,
Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (Eds.) Measures o/personality and social
psychology attitudes (pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Penick, N., & Jepsen, D. (1992). Family functioning and adolescent career development.
Career Development Quarterly, 49,208-222.
Phillips, S. D., Blustein, D. L., Jobin-Davis, K., & White, S. F. (2002). Preparation for
the school-to-work transition: The views of high school students. Journal 0/
Vocational Behavior, 61,202-216.
Poole, M. E., Langan-Fox, J., Ciavarella, M., & Omodei, M. (1991). A contextualist
model of professional attainment: Results of a longitudinal study of career paths
of men and women. The Counseling Psychologist, 19,603-624.
113
Ramsey, P. G. (1991). Young children's awareness and understanding of social class
differences. Journal ofGenetic Psychology, 152, 71-82.
Roe, A. (1956). The psychology ofoccupations. New York: Wiley.
Roe, A., & Lunneborg, P. W. (1990). Personality development and career choice. In D.
Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates (Eds.), Career choice and development (2nd
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rojewski, J. W. (1997). Effects of economic disadvantaged status and secondary
vocational education on adolescent work experience and postsecondary
aspirations. Journal ofVocational and Technical Education, 14, 43-59.
Rojewski, J. W., & Kim, H. (2003). Career choice pattems and behavior of work-bound
youth during early adolescence. Journal ofCareer Development, 30,89-108.
Rojewski, J. W., & Yang, B. (1997). Longitudinal analysis of select influences on
adolescents' occupational aspirations. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 51,375-
410.
Ruiz de Esparza, C. A., Porter, S., & Brown, M. T. (2003). Differential status identity and
vocational choice. Poster presented during the annual convention ofthe American
Psychological Association, Toronto.
Ryan, C. S., McCall, R. B., Robinson, D. R., Groark, C. J., Mulvey, L., & Plemons, B.
W. (2002). Benefits ofthe comprehensive child development program as a
function of AFDC receipt and SES. Child Development, 73,315-328.
Schulenberg, 1. E., Vondracek, F. W., & Crouter, A. C. (1984). The influence ofthe
family on vocational development. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 46, 129-
143.
Schultheiss, D. (2000). Emotional-social issues in the provision of career counseling. In
D. A. Luzzo (Ed.), Career counseling ofcollege students: An empirical guide to
strategies that work (pp. 43-62). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Schultheiss, D. E. P. (2003). A relational approach to career counseling: Theoretical
integration and practical application. Journal ofCounseling and Development, 81,
301-310.
Simmons, R. G., & Rosenberg, M. (1971). Functions of children's perceptions of the
stratification system. American Sociological Review, 36,235-249.
114
Snyder, C. R., Harris, c., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., et
al. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individua1-
differences measure of hope. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 60,
570-585.
Solorzano, D.G. (1992). An exploratory analysis of the effects of race, class and gender
on student and parent mobility aspirations. Journal ofNegro Education, 61,30-
44.
Super, D. E. (1953). A theory of vocational development. American Psychologist, 8, 185-
190.
Super, D. E. (1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 16, 282-298.
Swanson, J. L., & Gore, P. A., Jr. (2000). Advances in vocational psychology theory and
research. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook ofcounseling
psychology (3rd ed., pp. 233-269). New York: Wiley & Sons.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Tardy, C. H. (1985). Social support measurement. American Journal ofCommunity
Psychology, 13, 187-202.
Taylor, K. M., & Betz, N. E. (1983). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the
understanding and treatment of career indecision. Journal ofVocational Behavior,
22,63-81.
Thompson, M. N., & Subich, L. M. (2006). The relation of social status to the career
decision-making process. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69,289-301.
Thompson, M. N., & Subich, L. M. (2007). Exploration and validation of the Differential
Status Identity Scale. Journal ofCareer Assessment, 15,227-239.
Trusty, J. (2004). Effects ofstudents' middle-school and high-school experiences on
completion ofthe bachelor's degree. (Research Monograph No.1) Amherst, MA:
Center for School Counseling Outcome Research. Retrieved April 6, 2007, from
http://www.umass.edu/schoo1counseling/PDFs/ResearchMonographl.pdf
Trusty, J., Watts, R. E., & Erdman, P. (1997). Predictors of parents' involvement in their
teens' career development. Journal ofCareer Development, 23, 189-201.
115
Turner, S. L., Steward, 1. C., & Lapan, R. T. (2004). Family factors associated with sixth-
grade adolescents' math and science career interests. Career Development
Quarterly, 53,41-52.
Turner, S., & Lapan, R. T. (2002). Career self-efficacy and perceptions of parent support
in adolescent career development. Career Development Quarterly, 51,44-55.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). The condition ofeducation 2002. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved July 30, 2005, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002025_3.pdf
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2003). The 2003 HHS poverty
guidelines. Retrieved March 18,2004, from
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/03poverty.htm
Vondracek, F. W., Lerner, R. M., & Schulenberg, J. M. (1986). Career development: A
life span approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wall, J., Covell, K., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1999). Implications of social supports for
adolescents' education and career aspirations. Canadian Journal ofBehavioural
Science, 31, 63 -71.
Way, W. L., & Rossmann, M. M. (1996, June). Lesson 'sfrom l~fe 'sfirst teacher: The
role offamily in adolescent and adult readiness for school-to-work transition
(National Center for Research in Vocational Education MDS-725). Retrieved
January 27,2007, from http://vocserve.berkeley.edu/abstracts/MDS-725/725.html
Weinger, S. (2000). Opportunities for career success: Views of poor and middle-class
children. Children & Youth Services Review, 22, 13-35.
Whiston, S. C., & Keller, B. K. (2004a). Expanding research concerning family
influences on career development: Cultivating a number of brown spots. The
Counseling Psychologist, 32,612-617.
Whiston, S. C., & Keller, B. K. (2004b). The influences of the family of origin on career
development: A review and analysis. The Counseling Psychologist, 32,493-568.
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public
policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Yang, K. (2007). Individual social capital and its measurement in social surveys. Survey
Research Methods, 1, 19-27.
116
Young, R. A. (1994). Helping adolescents with career development: The active role of
parents. Career Development Quarter~y, 42, 195-203.
Young, R. A., Ball, J., Valach, L., Paseluikho, M. A., Wong, Y. S., DeVries, R. J., et al.
(2001). Career development in adolescence as a family project. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 48, 190-202.
Young, R. A., & Friesen, J. D. (1992). The intentions of parents in influencing the career
development oftheir children. Career Development Quarterly, 40, 198-207.
Young, R. A., Friesen, J. D., & Pearson, H. M. (1988). Activities and interpersonal
relations as dimensions of parental behavior in the career development of
adolescents. Youth & Society, 20,29-45.