Occupational/Career Decision-Making Thought Processes of Adolescents of High Intellectual Ability

Abstract

Three competing models of the career decision-making thought processes of adolescents of high intellectual ability were tested in this study. Survey data were collected from 664 intellectually gifted Australian adolescents and analyzed using structural equation modeling procedures. The finally accepted, optimal model suggested that, regardless of cultural orientation, highly able adolescents may place importance on whether a future career will be interesting or enjoyable, which is a probable predictor of their attitudes toward careers and their eventual intentions to pursue particular careers. In addition, the model indicated that those careers considered interesting or enjoyable by intellectually gifted adolescents may also be intellectually stimulating.

Keywords

career development high intellectual ability giftedness adolescents culture motivation

Despite substantial advances in understanding about how adolescents generally go about making decisions related to their future careers, much less attention has, to date, been devoted to the career decisions of adolescents of high intellectual ability. A myth appears to persist that intellectually gifted adolescents, defined by Gagné (2004) as individuals whose intellectual abilities lie within the top 10% of age peers, are able to pursue any career (Achter, Benbow, & Lubinski, 1996; Maxwell, 2007; Stewart, 1999) and require no special assistance from others in doing so (Casey & Shore, 2000; Chen & Wong, 2013). The small but emerging literature on the career decisions of highly able adolescents suggests that the career decisions of this group (a) may be different to the career decisions of other adolescent populations, (b) are unlikely to extend to the full range of available career options, and (c) require support in the form of counseling or guidance (Chen & Wong, 2013; Greene, 2006; Kerr & Sodano, 2003; Maxwell, 2007; Miller & Cummings, 2009). Adolescents of high intellectual ability are a group worthy of special focus and interest, as they may have the greatest potential to contribute to, and advance, the different vocational fields, and have the greatest impact on the work and nonwork lives of others in society.

Literature on the Career Decisions of Adolescents of High Intellectual Ability

The literature on the career decisions of adolescents of high intellectual ability is simultaneously located within the fields of gifted education, vocational guidance and counseling, and vocational psychology. The research has largely been limited to a small number of areas, with the single greatest focus on the individual factors associated with the decision, including (a) high expectations of others in society (Grant, Battle, & Heggoy, 2000; Greene, 2003, 2006; Kerr & Sodano, 2003; Leung, 1998; Maxwell, 2007); (b) high aspirations of the adolescents themselves (Casey & Shore, 2000; Greene, 2006; Leung, 1998; Maxwell, 2007); (c) a need for intellectual challenge and stimulation (Emmett & Minor, 1993; Stewart, 1999); (d) a desire for a well-paying occupation (Emmett & Minor, 1993; Kerr & Sodano, 2003); (e) a desire for a high status/prestigious occupation (Chen & Wong, 2013; Leung, 1998; Miller & Cummings, 2009); (f) influence of the family (Grant et al., 2000; Miller & Cummings, 2009); (g) importance of personal interest/interests (Achter, Lubinski, Benbow, & Eftekhari-Sanjani, 1999; Gottfredson, 2003; Grant et al., 2000; Lubinski & Benbow, 2000; Vock, Köller, & Nagy, 2013); (h) importance of one’s abilities (Achter et al., 1999; Chen & Wong, 2013; Lubinski & Benbow, 2000); (i) possession of more occupational information than other adolescents in general (Chen & Wong, 2013; Kelly, 1992; Stewart, 1999); (j) a tendency to make early career decisions (Greene, 2003, 2006; Stewart, 1999); (k) multipotentiality, or having abilities and interests in multiple areas (Greene, 2003, 2006; Kerr & Sodano, 2003; Leung, 1998; Maxwell, 2007; Rysiew, Shore, & Leeb, 1999); and (l) a striving for perfectionism (Chen & Wong, 2013; Greene, 2003, 2006; Kerr & Sodano, 2003; Maxwell, 2007).

Attention also has been devoted to the specific types of careers that intellectually able adolescents appear most likely to pursue. First of all, gender-role socialization appears, at least in part, to direct the range of careers that are considered (Chen & Wong, 2013; Kerr & Sodano, 2003; Leung, 1998; Mendez & Crawford, 2002; Miller & Cummings, 2009; Sparfeldt, 2007), although the effect may be less pronounced for gifted female adolescents than gifted male adolescents (Vock et al., 2013). Furthermore, a number of scholars have suggested that intellectually gifted adolescents tend to favor unimaginative and traditional careers and careers within a somewhat narrow range of fields including health, communications, law, business, engineering, technology, and the physical sciences (Fiebig, 2008; Greene, 2006; Kerr & Colangelo, 1988; Kerr & Sodano, 2003; Persson, 2009). In terms of Holland’s (1997) model of vocational interests or themes, adolescents of high intellectual ability appear to have a tendency to report a high level of investigative interests or interests in scientific investigations and other intellectual work (Sparfeldt, 2007; Vock et al., 2013). Of note, the positive relationship between intelligence and investigative interests has been supported across a number of different verbal and nonverbal assessment instruments (Proyer, 2006).

Some scholars have focused their investigations on the nature of the relationship between the vocational interests and abilities of high-ability adolescents when they make their career decisions. Achter et al. (1999) noted that the career decisions of intellectually gifted adolescents need to simultaneously examine abilities and preferences (operationalized using standardized tests of college admission and personality-related value inventories, respectively), whereas Lubinski and Benbow (2000) suggested that cognitive abilities (e.g., general intelligence supported by quantitative, spatial, and verbal abilities) and interests (e.g., Holland’s [1997] six vocational interests) are among the most significant personal determinants of educational and vocational choice. The two constructs do not appear to be substantially related, with Sparfeldt (2007) noting only a moderate correlation, and Gottfredson (2003) suggesting that broad cognitive abilities are generally independent of vocational interests. In situations where a conflict exists between an adolescent’s areas of interest and ability, the area of interest may override, or take precedence over, the area of ability (Gottfredson, 2003).

It is noteworthy that although the emerging research has concentrated on the individual factors associated with career decisions, and the likely outcomes of such career decisions, it has largely neglected the thought processes associated with the career decisions of intellectually gifted adolescents. Information on the thinking related to how specifically intellectually gifted adolescents may go about making their career decisions, by investigating how the various factors associated with the occupational/career decision may be interlinked and sequenced, may allow a better informed, a more sophisticated, and a more nuanced guidance of these occupational/career decisions. In this study, an attempt was made to gain a clearer understanding of the occupational/career decision-making thought processes of intellectually gifted adolescents by testing multiple, but related, theoretical models.

Background to the Theoretical Models

The three related theoretical models that guided the study were informed by the literature in a number of areas. In addition to the emerging findings on the career decisions of intellectually gifted adolescents, the theoretical models incorporated elements of the theories of motivation, due to their demonstrated importance to occupational decisions (Battle & Wigfield, 2003; Jung, 2014; Jung & McCormick, 2011) and to address the view that motivation theories may have “major implications for updating career theories” (Hesketh, 2001, p. 205), and the literature on culture, in recognition of the increasing cultural diversity of modern societies and the consequent need for occupational/career theories to have cultural validity (Leong & Brown, 1995).

Among the constructs that have been identified in the literature to be associated with the career decisions of adolescents of high intellectual ability, six that appeared most salient to the cognitive decision-making processes that may lead to occupational/career intentions (i.e., a need for intellectual stimulation, a desire to fulfill one’s potential, social influence from the family, interest/enjoyment in an occupation, income from an occupation, and recognition from others) were incorporated into the three theoretical models that guided the study. Constructs that appeared to represent disparate dimensions to those that were selected (e.g., the possession of occupational information), or may be more closely associated with career indecision (e.g., perfectionism), were not included. Although two of the selected constructs (i.e., a need for intellectual stimulation and a desire to fulfill one’s potential) have largely been unassessed, four constructs that were selected (i.e., interest/enjoyment in an occupation, income from an occupation, recognition from others, and social influence from the family) were previously incorporated into research on the cognitive career decision-making processes of general adolescents as constructs derived from two motivation theories: expectancy-value theory and the theory of reasoned action (Jung & McCormick, 2011; Jung, McCormick, Gregory, & Barnett, 2011).

In expectancy-value theory, it is proposed that the motivation of an individual to engage in an activity is determined by his expectancies for success and his values (Van den Broeck et al., 2014; Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). If this theory is applied to an occupational/career decision-making context, it may be argued that the motivation of an individual to engage in a particular occupation may be determined by whether he expects to be successful in the occupation, along with his values such as interest/enjoyment, recognition from others, and income. In comparison, the theory of reasoned action proposes that the intentions of an individual to engage in an activity or occupation may be simultaneously determined by his personal attitudes toward the activity or occupation and the perceived social influences from important others, such as the family (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Burak, Rosenthal, & Richardson, 2013; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Two constructs derived from the theory of reasoned action (i.e., occupational intention, or the intention to pursue a particular occupation, and occupational attitude, or the attitude toward a particular occupation) that have previously been incorporated in studies of the cognitive career decision-making processes of general and intellectually gifted adolescents (Jung, 2014; Jung & McCormick, 2011) were additionally incorporated into the theoretical models that guided the study.

Finally, in acknowledgment of the view that among the existing cultural dimensions, “the most commonly known, and the most relevant to notions of vocational development, is the individualism-collectivism dimension” (Hesketh & Rounds, 1995, p. 370); two cultural orientation constructs (i.e., idiocentrism-future, or an individualistic or independent outlook with respect to the future, and allocentrism-family, or an interdependent or collectivistic orientation toward one’s family; Hofstede, 2001; Jung, 2014; Jung & McCormick, 2011; Jung et al., 2011; Triandis, 1995) were incorporated into the theoretical models. Idiocentrism and allocentrism are the terms used to refer to the societal level constructs of individualism (i.e., an orientation toward autonomy and independence) and collectivism (i.e., an orientation toward interdependence and relationships with others), respectively, at the level of the individual (Aktaş, 2014; Hofstede, 2001; Taras et al., 2014; Triandis, 1995; Yu, 2015).

Theoretical Models

All three theoretical models that guided this study originated from a prior study on the cognitive career decision-making processes of 687 high-ability adolescents (Jung, 2014). One (see Figure 1) was the theoretical model that guided Jung (2014), which was slightly modified to recognize the positive/negative direction of the path relationships in and to remove a construct that did not form a part of the empirically derived models in the study. The other two theoretical models (see Figures 2 and 3) followed the exact specifications of the empirically verified models in Jung (2014). The simultaneous testing of three theoretical models represents the adoption of a competing models strategy (i.e., the testing of a number of plausible alternative models for a particular phenomenon), which is considered “much stronger than a test of a single model in isolation” (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010, p. 647). At the same time, the study may be described as being confirmatory in nature, as an attempt was made to confirm theoretical models that were previously developed, tested, and (in two cases) validated, using an independent sample.

Figure 1.

Theoretical Model 1.

Figure 2.

Theoretical Model 2.

Figure 3.

Theoretical Model 3.

Theoretical Model 1 proposes that highly able adolescents with both individualistic orientations toward the future and collectivistic orientations toward their families are likely to value interest and enjoyment in occupations (with social influences from the family playing an intermediary role in the relationship between allocentrism-family and occupational interest/enjoyment). Simultaneously, the valuing of recognition from others is proposed to be a positive predictor of occupational interest/enjoyment, unlike the valuing of income, which may be negatively related to occupational interest/enjoyment. In turn, the valuing of interest or enjoyment in occupations is proposed to inform the attitudes of intellectually gifted adolescents toward occupations, either directly, or with a need for intellectual stimulation acting as an intermediary construct. Thereafter, occupational attitudes (which may be negatively related to the need to fulfill one’s potential) are proposed to positively predict occupational intentions.

Theoretical Models 2 and 3 are closely related to Theoretical Model 1, and with each other. Theoretical Model 2 is identical to Theoretical Model 1, except for the absence of a path relationship from a need for intellectual stimulation to occupational attitude. In comparison, Theoretical Model 3 is identical to Theoretical Model 2, except for one additional path relationship from a need for intellectual stimulation to a need to fulfill one’s potential. The individual elements of the three theoretical models are explained in further detail below.

Hypotheses

The 12 hypotheses of the study, reflecting each of the paths in the three theoretical models, are noted below. Preceding each statement of a hypothesis (or group of hypotheses) are the associated arguments.

First, cultural orientation may be related to the types of values that are espoused by adolescents of high intellectual ability. Those with an individualistic outlook toward the future are likely to value autonomy and give priority to their own personal preferences and needs, rather than those of others, when making decisions about their future (Hofstede, 2001; Taras et al., 2014; Triandis, 1995). As personal preferences are likely to be informed, at least in part, by what is considered to be interesting and/or enjoyable, in the context of an occupational decision, it may be argued that these adolescents may value occupations that they consider to be interesting and/or enjoyable. In contrast, those who are collectivist with respect to their families, and therefore value being part of their families, are likely to be primarily motivated by family norms, which may mean that they will be substantially influenced by their families on a range of matters (Hofstede, 2001; Taras et al., 2014; Triandis, 1995), including decisions about their future occupation or career. Therefore, Hypotheses 1 and 2 are proposed:

Hypothesis 1: Idiocentrism-future will positively predict occupationalinterest/enjoyment.

Hypothesis 2: Allocentrism-family will positively predict social influence-family.

Social influences from the family may affect occupational decisions in diverse ways. For intellectually gifted adolescents who place substantial importance on the views of their families, it is possible that family expectations for the pursuit of a certain career, or a certain type of career, may be internalized to lead to the development of an interest in, or a feeling of enjoyment for, such careers (Jung, 2014; Jung & McCormick, 2011). By comparison, the introjection of family expectations may not be an issue for highly able adolescents from families that encourage autonomous decisions and the pursuit of any occupation that is related to the adolescents’ area(s) of interest or enjoyment (Guay & Vallerand, 1997; Jung, 2014; Jung & McCormick, 2011). In both cases, intellectually gifted adolescents may come to value interest and enjoyment in occupations. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 is proposed:

Hypothesis 3: Social influence-family will positively predict occupational interest/enjoyment.

Intellectually gifted adolescents who are considering their futures may make a broad distinction between interesting or enjoyable occupations and occupations that are financially rewarding. Entry into the few occupations that may be considered simultaneously interesting, enjoyable, and financially rewarding may be perceived as either being very competitive or requiring a substantial investment of time. Consequently, many high-ability adolescents may feel the need to make a choice between occupations that are considered to be interesting or enjoyable and those that will generate adequate financial reward (Jung, 2014; Jung & McCormick, 2011). It follows that a negative relationship may exist between valuing interest or enjoyment in occupations and valuing the income achievable from occupations. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 is proposed:

Hypothesis 4: Occupational income will negatively predict occupational interest/enjoyment.

If occupation-related values are compared with the different forms of motivation proposed in self-determination theory (i.e., intrinsic motivation [motivation to engage in an activity for its inherently interesting or enjoyable nature], extrinsic motivation [motivation to engage in an activity due to the attainment of a reward that is separate to the activity experience], or amotivation [a lack of motivation]; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Williams et al., 2014), it may be argued that both occupational income and recognition from others are strongly associated with extrinsic motivation. Indeed, the motivation for financial (i.e., occupational income) or social (i.e., recognition) rewards may be considered similar in that they both represent states of motivation that are distinct to the inherent experience of a particular occupation. It follows that a positive relationship may exist between occupational income and recognition from others. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 is proposed:

Hypothesis 5: Occupational income will positively predict recognition.

Irrespective of the above, in an individualist and egalitarian society such as Australia, which values independence, autonomy, and equality among its members (Hofstede, 2001; Hughes & Scott, 2013), recognition from others may not be considered to be as important or desirable as occupation-related values relating to interest or enjoyment by highly able adolescents who are contemplating the occupational decision. Indeed, recognition from others may only be valued to the extent that it contributes to the interest or enjoyment of an occupation (Jung, 2014). Therefore, Hypothesis 6 is proposed:

Hypothesis 6: Recognition will positively predict occupational interest/enjoyment.

Intellectually gifted adolescents may have different conceptualizations, in comparison with the rest of the adolescent population, of what constitutes an interesting and/or enjoyable occupation. It is possible that those occupations that appropriately respond to, and utilize, the unique abilities and characteristics of this group (e.g., a fast rate of learning, an excellent retention of knowledge, a long attention span, and a heightened level of curiosity; Chichekian & Shore, 2014; VanTassel-Baska, 1998), and, therefore, provide an adequate level of intellectual stimulation, may be considered to be the most interesting and enjoyable. Consistent with the idea, a number of scholars have suggested that an overlap may exist for intellectually gifted adolescents between intellectually stimulating activities and activities that may be considered interesting or enjoyable (Hertberg-Davis & Callahan, 2008; Persson, 2010). Therefore, Hypothesis 7 is proposed:

Hypothesis 7: Occupational interest/enjoyment will positively predict intellectual stimulation.

Intellectual stimulation in an activity, through exposure to an adequate level of challenge in one’s area(s) of ability, may allow intellectually gifted adolescents to experience a level of absorption in the activity that is commensurate with flow. Flow refers to a mental state of complete immersion in, focus on, and enjoyment of, a task (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975), which may be considered equivalent to the type of motivation (i.e., optimal motivation) that is necessary for the full development of talent (Rea, 2000). It follows that intellectual stimulation may be associated with the full development of potential for intellectually gifted adolescents. In fact, Rea (2000) considered the challenge that may arise from intellectual stimulation to be one of the three conditions (along with undivided interest and an optimal level of arousal) under which flow, and therefore the fulfillment of potential, is most likely in his theory of optimal motivation. Relatedly, intellectual stimulation in an occupation may be an important consideration that informs the attitudes of intellectually gifted adolescents toward various occupations (Jung, 2014). Thus, Hypotheses 8 and 9 are proposed:

Hypothesis 8: Intellectual stimulation will positively predict fulfillment of potential.

Hypothesis 9: Intellectual stimulation will positively predict occupational attitude.

A number of scholars have suggested that the values of intellectually gifted and nongifted adolescents may refer to fundamental principles or beliefs that guide actions, which may be related to whether an activity or task fulfills one’s needs, confirms one’s self-schema (an unconscious and systematized generalization about oneself), achieves one’s goals, and/or produces a positive affect (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995; Horowitz, 2012; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Stam, Verbakel, & de Graaf, 2014). Eccles and Wigfield (1995) noted that values, which may be subdivided into four categories (intrinsic value, attainment value, utility or instrumental value, and the costs of engagement in an activity), may simultaneously have motivational and behavioral consequences. In the context of an occupational decision, one prominent intrinsic value may be whether an occupation will be interesting or enjoyable (Achter et al., 1999; Gottfredson, 2003; Lubinski & Benbow, 2000; Vock et al., 2013). Values such as occupational interest/enjoyment are likely to be generally consistent with, and precede, the formation of the less enduring evaluations of occupations (i.e., occupational attitudes; Jung, 2014; Jung & McCormick, 2011). Therefore, Hypothesis 10 is proposed:

Hypothesis 10: Occupational interest/enjoyment will positively predict occupational attitude.

In contrast, and possibly reflecting some resentment toward the extremely high expectations of society (Emmett & Minor, 1993; Grant et al., 2000; Greene, 2003; Kerr & Sodano, 2003; Miller & Cummings, 2009) or a view that the fulfillment of potential may be an unnecessary luxury in an already very complex but important decision (Jung, 2014), adolescents of high intellectual ability may not have very favorable attitudes toward occupations that may allow them to fulfill their potential. It follows that the fulfillment of potential may be associated with negative occupational attitudes. Therefore, Hypothesis 11 is proposed:

Hypothesis 11: Fulfillment of potential will negatively predict occupational attitude.

Finally, and consistent with the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Burak et al., 2013; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Fitzmaurice, 2005), which proposes that attitudes toward particular activities (along with social influences from important others) will predict intentions to engage in those activities, it may be argued that the favorable or unfavorable attitudes of intellectually gifted adolescents toward particular occupations will predict their eventual positive or negative intentions to pursue those occupations. Therefore, Hypothesis 12 is proposed:

Hypothesis 12: Occupational attitude will positively predict occupational intention.

Method

The study was part of a larger project that also examined the amotivation and indecision of adolescents of high intellectual ability with respect to their future occupations or careers (Jung, 2017).

Participants

Students attending three academically selective high schools in the greater Sydney metropolitan area in the state of New South Wales, Australia, were involved in the study. Places in academically selective high schools comprise approximately 5% of total places in high schools in New South Wales (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2014; Jung, 2014; McNeilage & Smith, 2014; New South Wales Department of Education and Communities, 2015a), and students gain entry primarily on the basis of their performance in tests of ability and achievement in English and mathematics (New South Wales Department of Education and Communities, 2015b). All three participating schools were ranked among the top 45 of 819 schools in 2014, as determined by the performance of their Grade 12 students in in-school assessments and standardized external examinations (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2014; McNeilage & Smith, 2014).

A total of 664 participants volunteered from all of the Grade 9 to 11 students at the three participating schools. The participants had a mean age of 15 years (SD = 0.92), and there were more males (n = 401) than females. The mean socioeconomic status of the participants, measured by converting information on the occupations of their parents or guardians into a socioeconomic index (ANU4 scale; Jones & McMillan, 2001), was approximately at the level of a computing professional, which is below the level of many other professionals in fields such as medicine and law, but above the level of social welfare professionals, associate professionals in fields such as real estate, and trade persons. The participants had a number of different ancestries, including East Asian (47%), Anglo-Saxon/Celtic (32%), South Asian (8%), non-Anglo-Saxon/Celtic Western European (3%), Eastern European (2%), Southeast Asian (2%), and mixed ancestry (6%). Seventy-eight percent of the participants were born in Australia.

Instrument

Data were collected for the study using a survey instrument that was developed for a previous study on the career decisions of gifted adolescents (Jung, 2014). It incorporated eight open-ended or multiple-choice items on the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants (i.e., age, grade, gender, parental/guardian occupation, place of birth, status as a local or international student, ancestry, and school attended) and 58 Likert-type scale items designed to assess all 10 constructs (i.e., Idiocentrism-Future, Allocentrism-Family, Occupational Income, Social Influence-Family, Recognition, Occupational Interest/Enjoyment, Intellectual Stimulation, Occupational Attitude, Fulfillment of Potential, and Occupational Intention) of interest to the study. Participants were required to respond to the Likert-type scale items while thinking about the occupation that they were most likely to pursue upon the completion of their studies, using one of seven response options ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7).

The five or six items that were designed to assess each of the constructs in the instrument have a reasonable level of reliability, as Cronbach’s alpha values in Jung (2014) ranged from .76 to .92 (i.e., Idiocentrism-Future = .76, Allocentrism-Family = .86, Occupational Income = .85, Social Influence-Family = .92, Recognition = .76, Occupational Interest/Enjoyment = .80, Intellectual Stimulation = .85, Occupational Attitude = .82, Fulfillment of Potential = .82, and Occupational Intention = .86). Jung also established the convergent and discriminant validity of the scales by demonstrating that the factor loadings of each item were in excess of .50, and by comparing the fit of the one- and two-factor models of the items that comprised each pair of highly correlated factors (i.e., superior fit for the two-factor models was verified in every case, as assessed by a combination of a significant Satorra–Bentler chi-square difference statistic [Δχ²], a lower root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA], a higher nonnormed fit index [NNFI], a higher comparative fit index [CFI], and/or a lower standardized root mean square residual [SRMR]). Items relating to eight of the constructs (i.e., Idiocentrism-Future, Allocentrism-Family, Occupational Income, Social Influence-Family, Recognition, Occupational Interest/Enjoyment, Occupational Attitude, and Occupational Intention) were originally sourced from Jung and McCormick (2011) and Jung et al. (2011), whereas a number of scales were the original source of the items for Intellectual Stimulation (i.e., Bolkan & Goodboy, 2010; Krause & Coates, 2008; Zytowski, 2006) and Fulfillment of Potential (i.e., Benson & Scales, 2009; Bundick, 2011; Harackiewicz, Durik, Barron, Linnenbrink-Garcia, & Tauer, 2008).

Results

The data collected from the study participants were input into IBM SPSS Statistics (version 20). After screening and cleaning the data, any missing data, which represented 1% of total data, were treated using the expectation–maximization (EM) algorithm. Thereafter, the data were exported into LISREL (version 8.80) for the conduct of confirmatory factor analyses and structural equation modeling procedures. The diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) method of estimation was used for all analyses, due to its appropriateness for the ordinal, Likert-type scale, data that were collected (Hair et al., 2010).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis, which involved the confirmation of measurement models of the constructs of interest to the study, was undertaken as a preparatory stage to the structural equation modeling procedures to test the three theoretical models that guided the study. First, a full measurement model comprising items designed to assess all 10 constructs of interest was estimated and thereafter evaluated using the following guidelines (Byrne, 1998; Weston & Gore, 2006):

whether the t statistic of each measurement equation was greater than 1.96,

whether the R² value of each measurement equation was between .30 and 1.00, and

whether the goodness of fit of the model according to a number of predetermined fit indices (i.e., Satorra–Bentler χ²/df, RMSEA, normed fit index [NFI], NNFI, CFI, SRMR, goodness-of-fit index [GFI], and adjusted goodness-of-fit index [AGFI]) was “good.”

As the initially estimated model did not satisfy the second of the above criteria, six items (i.e., one item each designed to assess Recognition, Fulfillment of Potential, Idiocentrism-Future, Social Influence-Family, Occupational Income, and Occupational Interest/Enjoyment) needed to be progressively removed. The resulting model had no problematic issues and a good fit (i.e., Satorra–Bentler χ² = 3,671.104, p = 0, df = 1,229; Satorra–Bentler χ²/df = 2.987; RMSEA = .05; NFI = .94; NNFI = .96; CFI = .96; SRMR = .06; GFI = .97; AGFI = .96) to the data. The analysis was sufficiently powerful as the power estimates under both the test of close fit and not-close fit,using the recommended ε₀ values of 0.05 and ε₁ values of 0.08 and 0.01, respectively (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2000; Kline, 2005; MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996), were in excess of 0.99 (Preacher & Coffman, 2006). Table 1 provides detailed information on the 10 factors that comprised the model.

Table 1.

Full Measurement Model of Factors: Ms, SDs, Factor Loadings, and Error Variances.

Factors/items	M	SD	Loading	Error variance
Idiocentrism-Future
It is important that I make my own decisions about my future	6.40	0.86	.64	.59
Ultimately, I determine where I end up in life	5.79	1.40	.60	.64
I am responsible for my own future	6.13	1.06	.70	.51
My future is mostly determined by my own preferences	5.62	1.19	.62	.61
My future depends on me	5.89	1.16	.73	.46
Allocentrism-Family
I always consider the views of my family on matters that are important to me	5.11	1.45	.69	.53
I am motivated by what my family expects me to do	4.10	1.63	.56	.69
My family is the most important part of my life, and I do not want to be in conflict with them	4.76	1.62	.73	.46
An important part of my identity is being a member of my family	5.02	1.60	.82	.32
I like to feel connected to my family	5.42	1.46	.84	.30
It is important to respect my family’s wishes	4.77	1.52	.75	.44
Occupational Interest/Enjoyment
One of the most important things about this job/occupation is that it will make me happy	5.84	1.21	.68	.54
I am really interested in this job/occupation	5.90	1.15	.83	.31
This job/occupation will allow me to pursue my interests	5.97	1.19	.79	.37
I expect to have a lot of fun in this job/occupation	5.32	1.36	.57	.67
It is very important for me to be satisfied in this job/occupation	6.04	1.08	.63	.61
Fulfillment of Potential
I would like to live up to my intellectual abilities	6.42	0.92	.64	.59
I need to take advantage of my abilities	6.04	1.06	.72	.48
It is important for me to do my best	6.39	0.97	.71	.49
I would like to fulfill my potential	6.32	0.95	.74	.46
I should take the initiative in making the most of my potential	6.10	1.06	.79	.38
Social Influence-Family
My family thinks that I should pursue this job/occupation	5.15	1.51	.84	.30
My family thinks that it is a good idea for me to choose this job/occupation	5.16	1.48	.90	.19
My family wants me to pursue this job/occupation	4.97	1.51	.89	.22
Members of my family give their backing for this job/occupation	5.33	1.46	.86	.27
My family approves of this job/occupation	5.45	1.43	.85	.29
Occupational Income
I believe that you work to make money	4.20	1.78	.69	.52
What matters most is how much money I will make in this job/occupation	3.55	1.71	.80	.36
What I will be paid in this job/occupation is important to me	4.63	1.59	.81	.34
The financial rewards will motivate me in this job/occupation	4.47	1.73	.82	.33
One way of becoming rich is to get this job/occupation	4.54	1.76	.70	.51
Intellectual Stimulation
This job/occupation will be mentally demanding	5.73	1.23	.65	.58
This job/occupation will test the limits of my abilities	5.56	1.28	.55	.70
I will need to work hard in this job/occupation	6.12	1.03	.82	.32
This job/occupation will provide me with sufficient intellectual challenge	5.86	1.15	.76	.42
I will be pushed to produce quality work in this job/occupation	6.03	1.07	.72	.49
This job/occupation will be intellectually stimulating	5.97	1.09	.81	.34
Recognition
What matters most is how much recognition I will gain from other people from this job/occupation	3.27	1.59	.57	.68
I would like other people to find out how good I really am in this job/occupation	4.91	1.60	.62	.61
It is very important for me to impress people around me through this job/occupation	3.88	1.68	.74	.45
To me, success means being noticed by others for my achievements in this job/occupation	3.72	1.69	.67	.55
I like the prospect of telling people that I am in this job/occupation	5.02	1.53	.62	.62
Occupational Attitude
It is good for me to pursue this job/occupation	5.71	1.15	.64	.60
My individual view of this job/occupation is favorable	5.88	1.11	.76	.42
In my personal assessment of the jobs/occupations that I could do, this one appears to be the best	5.40	1.30	.58	.66
Personally, I have a positive opinion about this job/occupation	6.03	1.02	.78	.40
My personal preference is to pursue this job/occupation	5.82	1.13	.80	.35
Occupational Intention
I plan to apply (or seek the required education/training) for this job/occupation	6.29	0.97	.67	.55
I intend to pursue this job/occupation	5.89	1.12	.80	.36
I am committed to this job/occupation	5.57	1.26	.76	.41
It is likely that I will pursue this job/occupation	5.65	1.20	.79	.37
I have resolved to follow this occupational path	5.21	1.54	.75	.43

Construct Validity and Reliability

The psychometric properties of the 10 confirmed factors were assessed prior to further analysis. Specifically, assessments were made of the construct validity and reliability of these factors.

Construct validity

The 10 factors appeared to have satisfied the requirements for convergent validity as all of the standardized factor loadings in the full measurement model were in excess of .50 (i.e., the minimum standardized factor loading was .55, and 75% of the standardized factor loadings were at least .65). In addition, to assess whether discriminant validity may be an issue, the size of the correlations (see Table 2) among the factors were examined. Specifically, any potentially problematic factor pairings with correlations in excess of .70 (i.e., Occupational Attitude/Occupational Interest Enjoyment, Occupational Attitude/Occupational Intention, Intellectual Stimulation/Fulfillment of Potential, and Occupational Intention/Occupational Interest Enjoyment) were further investigated. For each of these factor pairings, a combined single-factor measurement model of the items that loaded onto both factors was developed and compared with their equivalent two-factor measurement models. Tables 3 to 6 show that in all cases, the two-factor models had superior fit according to a range of prespecified fit indices (i.e., Satorra–Bentler χ²/df, RMSEA, NFI, NNFI, CFI, SRMR, GFI, and AGFI) and a significant Satorra–Bentler chi-square difference (Δχ²) statistic. Discriminant validity was thereby established for all of the potentially problematic factor pairings.

Table 2.

Correlations Among Factors with Cronbach Alpha Values on the Diagonal.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Idiocentrism-Future	.78
Allocentrism-Family	.12*	.87
Occupational Interest/Enjoyment	.52*	.09	.82
Fulfillment of Potential	.58*	.32*	.63*	.84
Social Influence-Family	.11*	.44*	.13*	.35*	.93
Occupational Income	−.03	.06	−.26*	.03	.17*	.87
Intellectual Stimulation	.43*	.23*	.48*	.76*	.40*	.06	.86
Recognition	−.07	.00	−.04	.10	.08	.58*	.08	.77
Occupational Attitude	.51*	.12*	.95*	.69*	.32*	−.15*	.60*	.03	.82
Occupational Intention	.45*	.11*	.73*	.64*	.41*	−.03	.64*	.09	.89*	.86

p < .01.

Table 3.

Discriminant Validity Analysis 1: Goodness of Fit Indices of Measurement Models of the Observed Variables Loading Onto Factors “Occupational Attitude” and “Occupational Interest/Enjoyment.”

Model	χ²	p	df	χ²/df	RMSEA	NFI	NNFI	CFI	SRMR	GFI	AGFI
One-factor model	219.32	.00	35	6.27	.09	.97	.97	.97	.04	.99	.99
Two-factor model	193.34	.00	34	5.69	.08	.97	.97	.98	.04	1.00	.99

Note. p < .05 for Δχ². RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; NFI = normed fit index; NNFI = nonnormed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index.

Table 4.

Discriminant Validity Analysis 2: Goodness of Fit Indices of Measurement Models of the Observed Variables Loading Onto Factors “Occupational Attitude” and “Occupational Intention.”

Model	χ²	p	df	χ²/df	RMSEA	NFI	NNFI	CFI	SRMR	GFI	AGFI
One-factor model	260.67	.00	35	7.45	.10	.97	.96	.97	.04	.99	.99
Two-factor model	152.72	.00	34	4.49	.07	.98	.98	.98	.03	1.00	.99

Reliability

The 10 factors had an acceptable level of reliability, as reflected in Cronbach alpha values ranging from .77 to .93 (Idiocentrism-Future = .78, Allocentrism-Family = .87, Occupational Interest/Enjoyment = .82, Fulfillment of Potential = .84, Social Influence-Family = .93, Occupational Income = .87, Intellectual Stimulation = .86, Recognition = .77, Occupational Attitude = .82, and Occupational Intention = .86; see Table 2).

Table 5.

Discriminant Validity Analysis 3: Goodness of Fit Indices of Measurement Models of the Observed Variables Loading Onto Factors “Intellectual Stimulation” and “Fulfillment of Potential.”

Model	χ²	p	df	χ²/df	RMSEA	NFI	NNFI	CFI	SRMR	GFI	AGFI
One-factor model	731.66	.00	44	16.63	.15	.90	.89	.91	.07	.98	.97
Two-factor model	267.95	.00	43	6.23	.09	.97	.96	.97	.04	.99	.99

Table 6.

Discriminant Validity Analysis 4: Goodness-of-Fit Indices of Measurement Models of the Observed Variables Loading Onto Factors “Occupational Intention” and “Occupational Interest/Enjoyment.”

Model	χ²	p	df	χ²/df	RMSEA	NFI	NNFI	CFI	SRMR	GFI	AGFI
One-factor model	769.41	.00	35	21.98	.18	.88	.85	.88	.08	.98	.96
Two-factor model	184.27	.00	34	5.42	.08	.97	.97	.98	.05	.99	.99

Structural Equation Modeling

Following confirmation that the 10 factors that comprised the three theoretical models had adequate psychometric properties, structural equation models were estimated of these theoretical models.

Theoretical Model 1

The initially estimated structural equation model of Theoretical Model 1 showed negative error variance for the path relationships leading to Occupational Attitude. The issue was resolved by trimming the least statistically significant of these path relationships (i.e., from Intellectual Stimulation to Occupational Attitude). The resulting model (see Figure 4) had no problematic issues and a good fit (i.e., Satorra–Bentler χ² = 5,149.78, p = 0, df = 1,258; Satorra–Bentler χ²/df = 4.09; RMSEA = .07; NFI = .92; NNFI = .93; CFI = .94; SRMR = .08; GFI = .95; AGFI = .94; Akaike’s information criterion [AIC] = 5,389.78; consistent AIC [CAIC] = 6,049.58; expected cross-validation index [ECVI] = 8.13) to the data. It is noted that the size of the standardized path coefficient between Occupational Interest/Enjoyment and Occupational Attitude is not problematic, as standardized path coefficients in LISREL models are regression coefficients which may have values greater than 1 (Jöreskog, 1999).

Figure 4.

Empirically refined model of Theoretical Models 1 and 2.

Theoretical Model 2

The initially estimated model of Theoretical Model 2 (see Figure 4) was identical to the empirically refined version of the structural equation model developed from Theoretical Model 1. As the model had no problematic issues and a good fit to the data, no model modifications were necessary.

Theoretical Model 3

The initially estimated structural equation model of Theoretical Model 3 contained a nonsignificant path relationship from Fulfillment of Potential to Occupational Attitude. Consequently, the path relationship was trimmed. The resulting model (see Figure 5) had no problematic issues and a good fit (i.e., Satorra–Bentler χ² = 4,724.02, p = 0, df = 1,261; Satorra–Bentler χ²/df = 3.75; RMSEA = .06; NFI = .93; NNFI = .94; CFI = .94; SRMR = .08; GFI = .95; AGFI = .95; AIC = 4.958.02; CAIC = 5,601.32; ECVI = 7.48) to the data.

Figure 5.

Empirically refined model of Theoretical Model 3.

It is noted that structural equation modeling analyses relating to all three theoretical models were sufficiently powerful, as all power estimates under the test of both close fit and not-close fit (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2000; Kline, 2005; MacCallum et al., 1996) were in excess of 0.99 (Preacher & Coffman, 2006).

Comparison of the refined versions of Theoretical Models 1, 2, and 3

The empirically refined versions of the structural equation models of the three theoretical models had similar levels of fit to the data. The only major difference between the models was that a negative relationship existed between Fulfillment of Potential and Occupational Attitude in the models derived from Theoretical Models 1 and 2, while this path was trimmed and replaced by a path from Intellectual Stimulation to Fulfillment of Potential in the model derived from Theoretical Model 3. Of these models, the model derived from Theoretical Model 3 was determined to be the optimal model for the study, due to its superior fit according to most of the indices of model fit, and indices (i.e., AIC, CAIC, and ECVI) that have been specifically identified as being salient when making a selection among competing nonhierarchical models (Brown, 2006; Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2000; Garcia-Morales, Bolivar-Ramos, & Martin-Rojas, 2014; Kline, 2005).

The finally accepted model suggested that, generally, highly able adolescents with an individualistic outlook toward the future or a collectivistic attitude toward their families are likely to value interest and enjoyment in occupations. As expected, the valuing of interest or enjoyment was found to coincide with the valuing of recognition from others but not with the valuing of income. The valuing of interest or enjoyment, in turn, was identified to be a strong and positive predictor of both a need for intellectual stimulation and the attitudes that intellectually gifted adolescents form of occupations. A need for intellectual stimulation and occupational attitude was found, respectively, to be strongly and positively predictive of a desire to fulfill one’s potential and occupational intention. Contrary to expectation, no statistically significant relationship was identified between a desire to fulfill one’s potential and occupational attitude.

The model provided support for 10 (Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12) of the 12 hypotheses. Of the unsupported hypotheses, Hypothesis 11 was only supported by the empirically refined version of Theoretical Models 1 and 2 (i.e., the nonoptimal model), and Hypothesis 9 was supported by neither of the empirical models.

Discussion

The finally accepted model contained all the constructs, along with the main relationships (including the cognitive process pathways originating from idiocentric/allocentric cultural orientation, the links between occupational values, and the intermediary functions of occupational interest/enjoyment and occupational attitude in the formation of occupational intentions) of all three theoretical models that guided the study. The only notable difference to the three theoretical models related to the finding that of occupational interest/enjoyment, a desire to fulfill one’s potential, and a need for intellectual stimulation, only occupational interest/enjoyment was a statistically significant predictor of occupational attitudes. All of the paths in the finally accepted model were in a direction that was consistent with expectations.

The finally accepted model was similar in many ways to a model of the cognitive career decision-making processes of general adolescents that was tested and refined over two phases of data collection from 1,058 adolescents (Jung & McCormick, 2011; Jung et al., 2011). The major differences related to the inclusion, in the finally accepted model in this study, of characteristics that are commonly found in intellectually gifted adolescents (i.e., a need for intellectual stimulation and a desire to fulfill one’s potential). One inference that could be made from the comparison is that intellectually gifted adolescents may simultaneously display similar and different career decision-making thought processes to adolescents who are not of high intellectual ability (Jung, 2014).

Although all of the path relationships in the finally accepted model were statistically significant, some were stronger than the others. By linking paths with the strongest relationships in the model, it was possible to identify a fundamental “backbone” cognitive process pathway that leads to the career intentions of intellectually gifted adolescents (i.e., idiocentrism-future–occupational interest/enjoyment–occupational attitude–occupational intention). The pathway suggested that highly able adolescents who are individualistic with respect to the future are likely to value interesting and enjoyable occupations, which informs positive attitudes toward occupations and, in turn, actual intentions to pursue particular occupations. An important branch from the pathway (i.e., occupational interest/enjoyment–intellectual stimulation–fulfillment of potential) indicated that the occupations considered interesting and enjoyable are likely to be associated with intellectual stimulation, which may coincide with a desire to fulfill one’s potential. Due to the pattern of the path relationships, two constructs (i.e., occupational interest/enjoyment and occupational attitude) may be considered to be major intermediary constructs that are likely to play pivotal roles in the formation of the occupational intentions of intellectually gifted adolescents. In particular, the prominence of occupational interest/enjoyment suggests that it may take precedence over all other factors for highly able adolescents who are contemplating their futures. The finding is consistent with the literature on the career decisions of intellectually gifted adolescents (Achter et al., 1999; Gottfredson, 2003; Lubinski & Benbow, 2000; Vock et al., 2013).

Due to the incorporated constructs, two of the relationships in the finally accepted model may be considered specific to intellectually gifted adolescents. First of all, the path relationship from occupational interest/enjoyment to a need for intellectual stimulation suggests that the unique characteristics of intellectually gifted adolescents may mean that what absorbs and intrigues these adolescents may require a certain level of challenge and mental stimulation. For example, it is possible that some routine occupational activities such as those in the hospitality industry (Sims, 2007), which may be considered enjoyable by many adolescents, are seen as tedious and dull by adolescents whose unique abilities are not fully utilized. The second of the relationships, from a need for intellectual stimulation to a desire to fulfill one’s potential, suggests that the experience of intellectual stimulation may coexist with a desire to fulfill one’s potential, possibly as the level of absorption in an activity that arises when one is intellectually stimulated (i.e., flow) may be conducive to the fulfillment of one’s potential (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). It is noteworthy that intellectual stimulation has been considered to be a component of the type of motivation (Komarraju, Karau, & Schmeck, 2009) that Schick and Phillipson (2009) suggested may allow “extraordinary” performance. The existence of these relationships in the finally accepted model suggests that the occupational/career decision-making thought process for intellectually gifted adolescents may incorporate unique dimensions relating to cognitive functioning and motivation for achievement.

Contrary to expectation, no statistically significant relationship was identified between a desire to fulfill one’s potential and occupational attitude. Instead of a negative relationship identified in Jung (2014), a desire to fulfill one’s potential may have no direct relationship with the formation of occupational attitudes for intellectually gifted adolescents. It is consequently possible that adolescents of high intellectual ability may respond to the substantial expectations of themselves and others by giving low priority to the fulfillment of potential when forming attitudes toward occupations. Alternatively, due to a possible nonexistence of occupations that are compatible with both their areas of ability and interest (Lubinski & Benbow, 2000, 2006), intellectually gifted adolescents may face a dilemma that is resolved by giving precedence to occupations that are considered to be interesting and enjoyable. It may be the case that a need to fulfill one’s potential is seen as comparatively less important than interest or enjoyment, and possibly distracting for intellectually able adolescents who are already faced with a complex, life-changing decision.

Implications for Practice

In terms of implications for practice, a careful examination of the pathways in the finally accepted model may enable psychologists, counselors, educators, policymakers, parents, and guardians to gain a better and a clearer understanding of how specifically highly able adolescents go about making their career decisions. Simultaneously, the model may be useful as a model for assisting adolescents who may be having some difficulty in arriving at a decision about their future careers, or adolescents who may be in the initial stages of thinking about their future careers. For example, reflecting the prominent role of interest/enjoyment and attitudes toward occupations in the model, the focus of any career guidance or counseling sessions may need to be on the types of career-related activities that these adolescents consider to be interesting or enjoyable, and the nature of attitudes that they may have of different occupations. As the model suggests that intellectual stimulation is strongly linked to interest and enjoyment in occupations, intellectually stimulating activities and occupations may be another area in need of focus.

The finally accepted model may also be useful in situations where psychologists, counselors, educators, policymakers, and/or parents wish to persuade adolescents of high intellectual ability to pursue certain desirable occupations, or a certain desirable category of occupations. For example, policymakers may wish to encourage the pursuit of occupations in fields that have difficulty in attracting talented candidates (e.g., science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; Robnett & Leaper, 2013), whereas many parents may wish to promote the pursuit of occupations that maximally utilize the capabilities of their children. To this end, the model suggests that one step may be to make an assessment of the cultural orientations of the adolescents, to determine a possible role for family members. If an intellectually gifted adolescent is identified to have a collectivist orientation toward the family, deliberate efforts by family members to direct the occupational decision in a particular direction may be useful. In addition, the interesting, enjoyable, and the intellectually stimulating aspects of the desirable occupations may be highlighted, as the finally accepted model suggests that such factors may influence the attitudes of intellectually gifted adolescents toward occupations. Reflecting the lack of a relationship between a desire to fulfill one’s potential and occupational attitude in the finally accepted model, it may be inappropriate to make any suggestions that any desirable occupations may allow intellectually gifted adolescents to fulfill their potential.

Implications for Future Research

The study has a number of implications for future research. First, it may be useful to undertake interviews of intellectually gifted adolescents to corroborate, or call into question, the findings of this study and to gain deeper and richer insights into the career decision-making processes of these adolescents. In addition, it may be worthwhile to assess the dimensions of culture that were not examined in this study, such as power distance orientation, masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term/short-term orientation (Hofstede, 2001), to gain a more complete understanding of the role of culture in the career decision-making thought processes of intellectually gifted adolescents. Research in the area may also benefit from the verification of the relevance of factors such as a superior access to career-related information (Chen & Wong, 2013; Kelly, 1992; Stewart, 1999) that did not form a part of this study but were nevertheless noted in the literature as being influential in the career decisions of intellectually gifted adolescents. Furthermore, to assess whether the formation of intentions to pursue particular occupations or careers actually translates into entry into these occupations or careers, another potentially useful area of inquiry may be in the eventual career destinations of intellectually gifted adolescents. Moreover, it may be useful to test this model with additional samples, including samples from non-Western societies, rural areas, indigenous groups, and adolescents of different levels of intellectual giftedness to verify its relevance across different intellectually gifted adolescent populations.

Limitations

The study has a number of limitations that need to be acknowledged. First, it is noted that the findings reflect the analysis of self-report survey data that were not triangulated using any other data sources, such as data from others who may have knowledge about the career decision-making thought processes of the research participants, any documentary evidence of reported claims, or any alternative data types that may be collected using nonsurvey research instruments. Second, the paths in the finally accepted model cannot be described as being causal in nature, as all of the conditions for establishing causality were not necessarily met (Hair et al., 2010). Third, it is not possible to claim that every factor relating to the career decision-making thought processes of intellectually gifted adolescents was incorporated into the theoretical models that guided the study, as it was not possible to test all such factors. Lastly, it is noted that the finally accepted model was one of many possible models of the career decision-making thought processes of intellectually gifted adolescents. Nevertheless, the model has undergone multiple stages of theoretical and empirical refinement, and may be a useful framework to guide future research and practice relating to the career decision-making thought processes of intellectually gifted adolescents.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Author Biography

Jae Yup Jung, PhD, is a senior lecturer in the School of Education at the University of New South Wales, Australia. His research program incorporates various topics relating to gifted adolescents, with a particular focus on their career-related decisions. His research has been recognized with awards from the American Educational Research Association, the Mensa Education and Research Foundation, and Mensa International and grants from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

References

Achter

J. A.

Benbow

C. P.

Lubinski

(1996). Rethinking multipotentiality among the intellectually gifted: A critical review and recommendations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 5–14.

Achter

J. A.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

Eftekhari-Sanjani

(1999). Assessing vocational preferences among gifted adolescents adds incremental validity to abilities: A discriminant analysis of educational outcomes over a 10-year interval. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 777–786.

Ajzen

Fishbein

(1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Aktaş

(2014). Moderating effect of idiocentrism and allocentrism on person-organization person-job fit and work attitudes relationship. Cross Cultural Management, 21, 290–305.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2014). Schools, Australia, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/BB371F975498C9D7CA257CA00011DB22/$File/att3250h.pdf

Battle

Wigfield

(2003). College women’s value orientations toward family, career and graduate school. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 56–72.

Benson

P. L.

Scales

P. C.

(2009). The definition and preliminary measurement of thriving in adolescence. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 85–104.

Bolkan

Goodboy

A. K.

(2010). Transformational leadership in the classroom: The development and validation of the Student Intellectual Stimulation Scale. Communication Reports, 23, 91–105.

Brown

T. A.

(2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford.

10.

Bundick

M. J.

(2011). Extracurricular activities, positive youth development, and the role of meaningfulness of engagement. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6, 57–74.

11.

Burak

L. J.

Rosenthal

Richardson

(2013). Examining attitudes, beliefs, and intentions regarding the use of exercise as punishment in physical education and sport: An application of the theory of reasoned action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 1436–1445.

12.

Byrne

B. M.

(1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

13.

Casey

K. M. A.

Shore

B. M.

(2000). Mentors’ contributions to gifted adolescents’ affective, social, and vocational development. Roeper Review, 22, 227–230.

14.

Chen

C. P.

Wong

(2013). Career counseling for gifted students. Australian Journal of Career Development, 22, 121–129.

15.

Chichekian

Shore

B. M.

(2014). Cognitive characteristics of the gifted: Reconceptualized in the context of inquiry learning and teaching. In Plucker

J. A.

Callahan

C. M.

(Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (pp. 119–131). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

16.

Csikszentmihalyi

(1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

17.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

M. R.

(1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.

18.

Diamantopoulos

Siguaw

(2000). Introducing LISREL. London, England: Sage.

19.

Eccles

J. S.

Wigfield

(1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’ achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 215–225.

20.

Emmett

J. D.

Minor

C. W.

(1993). Career decision-making factors in gifted young adults. Career Development Quarterly, 41, 350–366.

21.

Fiebig

J. N.

(2008). Gifted American and German adolescent women: A longitudinal examination of attachment, separation, gender roles, and career aspirations. High Ability Studies, 19, 67–81.

22.

Fishbein

Ajzen

(1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

23.

Fitzmaurice

(2005). Incorporating consumers’ motivations into the theory of reasoned action. Psychology & Marketing, 22, 911–929.

24.

Gagné

(2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15, 119–147.

25.

Garcia-Morales

V. J.

Bolivar-Ramos

M. T.

Martin-Rojas

(2014). Technological variables and absorptive capacity’s influence on performance through corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1468–1477.

26.

Gottfredson

L. S.

(2003). The challenge and promise of cognitive career assessment. Journal of Career Assessment, 11, 115–135.

27.

Grant

D. F.

Battle

D. A.

Heggoy

S. J.

(2000). The journey through college of seven gifted females: Influences on their career related decisions. Roeper Review, 22, 251–260.

28.

Greene

M. J.

(2003). Gifted adrift? Career counseling of the gifted and talented. Roeper Review, 25, 66–72.

29.

Greene

M. J.

(2006). Helping build lives: Career and life development of gifted and talented students. Professional School Counseling, 10, 34–42.

30.

Guay

Vallerand

R. J.

(1997). Social context, student’s motivation, and academic achievement: Toward a process model. Social Psychology of Education, 1, 211–233.

31.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

32.

Harackiewicz

J. M.

Durik

A. M.

Barron

K. E.

Linnenbrink-Garcia

Tauer

J. M.

(2008). The role of achievement goals in the development of interest: Reciprocal relations between achievement goals, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 105–122.

33.

Hertberg-Davis

Callahan

C. M.

(2008). A narrow escape: Gifted students’ perceptions of Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 199–216.

34.

Hesketh

(2001). Adapting vocational psychology to cope with change. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 203–212.

35.

Hesketh

Rounds

(1995). International cross-cultural approaches to career development. In Walsh

W. B.

Osipow

S. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology: Theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 367–390). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

36.

Hofstede

(2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

37.

Holland

J. L.

(1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

38.

Horowitz

M. J.

(2012). Self-identity theory and research methods. Journal of Research Practice, 8, 1–11.

39.

Hughes

Scott

(2013). A career intervention for humanitarian entrant students: An example. Australian Journal of Career Development, 22, 130–138.

40.

Jones

F. L.

McMillan

(2001). Scoring occupational categories for social research: A review of current practice, with Australian examples. Work, Employment and Society, 15, 539–563.

41.

Jöreskog

K. G.

(1999, June 22). How large can a standardized coefficient be? Retrieved from http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/HowLargeCanaStandardizedCoefficientbe.pdf

42.

Jung

J. Y.

(2017). Occupational/career amotivation and indecision for gifted and talented adolescents: A cognitive decision-making process perspective. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools. Advance online publication. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2016.33.

43.

Jung

J. Y.

(2014). Modeling the occupational/career decision-making processes of intellectually gifted adolescents: A competing models strategy. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37, 128–152.

44.

Jung

J. Y.

McCormick

(2011). The occupational decision: A cultural and motivational perspective. Journal of Career Assessment, 19, 75–91.

45.

Jung

J. Y.

McCormick

Gregory

Barnett

(2011). Culture, motivation, and vocational decision-making of Australian senior high school students in private schools. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 21, 85–106.

46.

Kelly

(1992). Career maturity of young gifted adolescents: A replication study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 36–45.

47.

Kerr

B. A.

Colangelo

(1988). The college plans of academically talented students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 67, 42–48.

48.

Kerr

B. A.

Sodano

(2003). Career assessment with intellectually gifted students. Journal of Career Assessment, 11, 168–186.

49.

Kline

R. B.

(2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.

50.

Kluckhohn

F. R.

Strodtbeck

F. L.

(1961). Variations in value orientations. Oxford, UK: Row, Peterson.

51.

Komarraju

Karau

S. J.

Schmeck

R. R.

(2009). Role of the Big Five personality traits in predicting college students’ academic motivation and achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 47–52.

52.

Krause

K. L.

Coates

(2008). Students’ engagement in first year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 493–505.

53.

Leong

F. T. L.

Brown

M. T.

(1995). Theoretical issues in cross-cultural career development: Cultural validity and cultural specificity. In Walsh

W. B.

Osipow

S. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 143–180). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

54.

Leung

A. S.

(1998). Vocational identity and career choice congruence of gifted and talented high school students. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 11, 325–335.

55.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2000). States of excellence. American Psychologist, 55, 137–150.

56.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2006). Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316–345.

57.

MacCallum

R. C.

Browne

M. W.

Sugawara

H. M.

(1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.

58.

Maxwell

(2007). Career counseling is personal counseling: A constructivist approach to nurturing the development of gifted female adolescents. Career Development Quarterly, 55, 206–224.

59.

McNeilage

Smith

(2014, December 18). HSC 2014: Boys proving they are all-rounders too. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/hsc-2014-boys-proving-they-are-allrounders-too-20141217-1291eq.html

60.

Mendez

L. M. R.

Crawford

K. M.

(2002). Gender-role stereotyping and career aspirations: A comparison of gifted early adolescent boys and girls. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 13, 96–107.

61.

Miller

Cummings

(2009). Gifted and talented students’ career aspirations and influences: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 6, Article 8.

62.

New South Wales Department of Education and Communities. (2015a). Selective high schools: Facts and figures. Retrieved from https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/media/downloads/about-us/statistics-and-research/key-statistics-and-reports/sel-high-lbote-students-2012.pdf

63.

New South Wales Department of Education and Communities. (2015b). Selective high schools Year 7 placement test: Test information. Retrieved from http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/learning/k-6assessments/shsplacement/ss_sampletest.php

64.

Persson

R. S.

(2009). Intellectually gifted individuals’ career choices and work satisfaction: A descriptive study. Gifted and Talented International, 24, 11–25.

65.

Persson

R. S.

(2010). Experiences of intellectually gifted students in an egalitarian and inclusive educational system: A survey study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 536–569.

66.

Preacher

K. J.

Coffman

D. L.

(2006). Computing power and minimum sample size for RMSEA [Computer software]. Available from http://quantpsy.org/

67.

Proyer

R. T.

(2006). The relationship between vocational interests and intelligence: Do findings generalize across different assessment methods? Psychology Science, 48, 463–476.

68.

Rea

D. W.

(2000). Optimal motivation for talent development. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 187–216.

69.

Robnett

R. D.

Leaper

(2013). Friendship groups, personal motivation, and gender in relation to high school students’ STEM career interest. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 652–664.

70.

Ryan

M. R.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.

71.

Rysiew

K. J.

Shore

B. M.

Leeb

R. T.

(1999). Multipotentiality, giftedness, and career choice: A review. Journal of Counseling and Development, 77, 423–430.

72.

Schick

Phillipson

S. N.

(2009). Learning motivation and performance excellence in adolescents with high intellectual potential: What really matters? High Ability Studies, 20, 15–37.

73.

Sims

W. J.

(2007). Antecedents of labor turnover in Australian alpine resorts. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 6, 1–26.

74.

Sparfeldt

J. R.

(2007). Vocational interests of gifted adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1011–1021.

75.

Stam

Verbakel

de Graaf

P. M.

(2014). Do values matter? The impact of work ethic and traditional gender role values on female labour market supply. Social Indicators Research, 116, 593–610.

76.

Stewart

J. B.

(1999). Career counselling for the academically gifted student. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 33, 3–12.

77.

Taras

Sarala

Muchinsky

Kemmelmeier

Singelis

T. M.

Avsec

. . . Sinclair

H. C.

(2014). Opposite ends of the same stick? Multi-method test of the dimensionality of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 213–245.

78.

Triandis

H. C.

(1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.

79.

Van den Broeck

De Cuyper

Baillien

Vanbelle

Vanhercke

De Witte

. (2014). Perception of organization’s value support and perceived employability: Insights from self-determination theory. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25, 1904–1918.

80.

VanTassel-Baska

(1998). Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners. Denver, CO: Love.

81.

Vock

Köller

Nagy

(2013). Vocational interests of intellectually gifted and highly achieving young adults. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 305–328.

82.

Weston

Gore

P. A.

(2006). A brief guide to structural equation modelling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 719–751.

83.

Wigfield

(1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 49–78.

84.

Wigfield

Eccles

J. S.

(2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.

85.

Williams

G. C.

Halvari

Niemiec

C. P.

Sørebø

Ø.

Olafsen

A. H.

Westbye

(2014). Managerial support for basic psychological needs, somatic symptom burden and work-related correlates: A self-determination theory perspective. Work & Stress, 28, 404–419.

86.

H. T.

(2015). A typological and probabilistic approach for exploring cross-cultural differences. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46, 3–18.

87.

Zytowski

(2006). Super Work Values Inventory–Revised: Technical manual (Version 1.0). Retrieved from https://www.kuder.com/research/technical-briefs/