The Adaptability of Career Decision-Making Profiles

Abstract

The present study investigated a new model for characterizing the way individuals make career decisions (career decision-making profiles [CDMP]). Using data from 285 students in a preacademic program, the present study assessed the association of the CDMP’s dimensions with the Emotional and Personality-related Career decision-making Difficulties questionnaire, the Career Decision-making Self-Efficacy scale, and the individuals’ decision status. The results suggest that comprehensive Information Gathering, analytic Information Processing, a more internal Locus of Control, much Effort Invested, less Procrastination, greater Speed of Making the Final Decision, less Dependence on Others, and less Desire to Please others were more adaptive in making career decisions. Contrary to our hypotheses, high Aspiration for an ideal occupation, and low Willingness to compromise were more adaptive for the decision-making process; no level of Consulting with others was particularly adaptive.

Keywords

career decision making career decision-making styles career indecision career indecisiveness career decision-making profiles

One of the main roles of career counselors is to guide clients through the decision-making process, helping them make better career decisions (Gati & Tal, 2008). To tailor the counseling process to the individuals’ characteristics, counselors should begin the process by assessing the way their clients approach the career-decision process, namely, their decision-making style (Harren, 1979; Kelly & Gunn, 2007; Phillips & Pazienza, 1988) or profile (Gati, Landman, Davidovitch, Asulin-Peretz, & Gadassi, 2010).

Until recently, research in the field of career decision-making styles has focused mainly on the classification of individuals into a “type,” based on a single dominant and stable personality trait (e.g., rational; Arroba, 1977), and comparing the types with respect to career-related variables. However, research based on these taxonomies has shown that the single-dominant-trait approach only partially accounts for individual differences (Shiloh, Salton, & Sharabi, 2002) and may be insufficient for diagnosing individuals in a way that can help them advance in their career decision-making process (Singh & Greenhaus, 2004). Moreover, the multiplicity of career decision-making styles taxonomies reflect the fact that individual’s decision-making style can be described by multiple characteristics (Gati et al., 2010).

In an attempt to overcome the disadvantages of the single, most dominant trait approach to decision-making styles, Gati and his colleagues (2010) proposed an alternative, multidimensional model focusing on career decision-making profiles (CDMP) rather than career decision-making styles. The CDMP model was developed on the basis of seven postulates (Gati et al., 2010): (1) there are individual differences in the way in which people approach and make career decisions; (2) making career decisions should be described with a multidimensional profile than a single dominant trait (or style); (3) each dimension in the individual’s decision-making profile represents a continuum between two poles; (4) although the CDMP dimensions are not independent, each dimension contributes uniquely to the description of the way individuals approach their career decisions; (5) the dimensions cannot be combined to generate a single total score; (6) one pole of each dimension is often more adaptive for decision making than the other; and (7) some dimensions are mainly personality related, but others are more situational.

Gati et al. (2010) systematically analyzed the literature on career decision-making styles and identified 40 types, which were collapsed into 16 prototypes. Further analysis resulted in 11 dimensions relevant for characterizing career decision making: Information gathering, Information processing, Locus of control, Effort invested, Procrastination, Speed of making the final decision, Consulting with others, Dependence on others, Desire to please others, Aspiration for an ideal occupation, and Willingness to compromise. The definitions of the CDMP dimensions are presented in Appendix A.

Based on this multidimensional model, Gati et al. (2010) developed the CDMP questionnaire and tested its internal consistency reliability and cross-cultural equivalence. Furthermore, the CDMP’s convergent and incremental validity in comparison to previous models of career decision-making style were supported (Gati, Gadassi, & Mashiah-Cohen, 2012). Previous research (Gati et al., 2010; Gati & Levin, 2012) tested the first five postulates underlying the model; the current study is aimed at investigating the sixth postulate—concerning the dimensions’ adaptability.

The Adaptability of the CDMP Dimensions

Career adaptability has been defined as the general ability to change so as to fit into new career-related circumstances (cf. Koen, Klehe, Van Vianen, Zikic, & Nauta, 2010). Specifically, Savickas (1997, 2005) proposed that career adaptability consists of (1) planning (i.e., looking ahead to one’s future career), (2) decision making (i.e., choosing a career to pursue), (3) exploration (i.e., looking around at various career options), and (4) confidence (i.e., having a feeling of self-efficacy for successfully executing the activities needed to achieve one’s career goals). In the present study, we focused on the second aspect of Savickas’ definition of adaptability—decision-making adaptability. The main difference between the two approaches is that we look at the career decision-making process rather than focusing on its outcome (i.e., the chosen career). This distinction is important because career decisions are not a one-time event nowadays; individuals who may have reached a satisfactory first choice by chance might not be fortunate in their next career decision. This is why focusing on the adaptability of the way that individuals make the decision, rather on the outcome of the decision itself, is crucial. We therefore define the decision-making process as more adaptive if it is carried out after sufficiently considering information relevant for the decision, while taking into consideration the restrictions of reality on the decision alternatives (e.g., acknowledging that some compromises might be necessary), and without unnecessary delays in either beginning or ending the process.

Previous research shows that individuals with different career decision-making styles differ in their adaptability (e.g., rational and intuitive styles are adaptive, whereas a dependent one is not; Phillips & Pazienza, 1988; Singh & Greenhaus, 2004). To date, only one study examined the adaptability of the CDMP dimensions (Gadassi, Gati, & Dayan, 2012). The results of that study showed that, as Gati et al. (2010) predicted, more comprehensive Information gathering, more analytic Information processing, a more internal Locus of control, more Effort invested, less Procrastination, greater Speed of making the final decision, less Dependence on others, and less Desire to please others were the more adaptive poles. However, neither Willingness to compromise nor Consulting with others had a more adaptive pole. Moreover, contrary to their hypothesis, high rather than low Aspiration for an ideal occupation was more adaptive for the decision-making process.

The Present Research

The goal of the present research was to further investigate which of the two poles of each CDMP dimension is more adaptive, and specifically to replicate the findings of Gadassi et al., (2012) regarding the adaptability of the CDMP dimensions and to further explore the null findings regarding Willingness to compromise and Consulting with others. Specifically, the first criterion of career decision-making adaptability we used was one of Savickas’ (2005) adaptability criteria: confidence in one’s decision (as indicated by the individual’s career decision-making self-efficacy).

In the context of career decision making, self-efficacy is defined as the individual’s belief that he or she can successfully complete the tasks necessary for making career decisions (Taylor & Betz, 1983). There is ample evidence that higher levels of Career Decision-making Self-Efficacy scale (CDSE) are adaptive and contribute to the decision-making process (cf. Betz, Hammond, & Multon, 2005). Specifically, it has been found that higher levels of CDSE are associated with lower levels of career indecision (e.g., Creed, Patton, & Bartrum, 2004; Gati et al., 2011; Nota, Ferrari, Solberg, & Soresi, 2007), more adaptive career beliefs (Luzzo & Day, 1999), less fear of career commitment (Betz & Serling, 1993), and greater persistence in academic studies (Peterson, 1993). Therefore, we hypothesized that a positive correlation with the CDSE would indicate that the higher pole of the dimension is the more adaptive one.

Additionally, we applied two of Gadassi et al.’s (2012) criteria—the degree to which individuals experience emotional and personality-related career decision-making difficulties (EPCD), and the decision status of the individual—to career decision-making adaptability. The model for Emotional and Personality-related Career decision-making Difficulties (Saka & Gati, 2007; Saka, Gati, & Kelly, 2008) is comprised of three factors that are considered to lead to pervasive and chronic difficulties in career decision making: Pessimistic Views, Anxiety, and Self-concept and Identity. The Pessimistic Views factor involves cognitive biases and negative perceptions associated with the decision-making process and the world of work, as well as pessimistic views of the individual’s control over the process, the choice, and its outcomes. The Anxiety factor involves individuals’ anxiety about the decision-making process and its outcomes. The third factor, Self-concept and Identity, involves difficulties in forming a stable, independent personal and vocational identity, that is, decision difficulties connected mainly with developmental personality aspects of the individual.

Previous research shows that higher levels of emotional and personality-related difficulties hinder the career decision-making process (Gati, Asulin-Peretz, & Fisher, 2012; Gati et al., 2011; Saka & Gati, 2007) and are associated with lower levels of CDSE (our first adaptability criterion). Additionally, these difficulties are found to be associated with a more external locus of control (Gati et al., 2011). Importantly, in the context of CDMP, higher levels of the three EPCD factors were associated with less comprehensive Information gathering, a more external Locus of control, more Procrastination, a lower Speed of making the final decision, more Dependence on others and Desire to please others, and a lower Aspiration for an ideal occupation (Gadassi et al., 2012). Therefore, we hypothesized that a negative correlation with the EPCD would indicate that the higher pole of the dimension is the more adaptive one.

Our third criterion for assessing career decision-making adaptability was individuals’ decision status—decided, partially decided, or undecided. Even when tested cross-sectionally, compared to decided and partially decided individuals, those who are undecided (i.e., less advanced in the career decision-making process) have been found to have lower levels of emotional stability and conscientiousness, and higher levels of EPCD (Gadassi et al., 2012). Importantly, in the context of CDMP, less progress in the career decision-making process was found to be associated with less comprehensive Information gathering, less analytic Information processing, a more external Locus of control, less Effort invested in the process, more Procrastination, a lower Speed in making the final decision, more Dependence on others, and a lower Aspiration for an ideal occupation (Gadassi et al., 2012). Surprisingly, less progress was associated with more Consulting with others. This finding was interpreted as suggesting that people consult more with others at the beginning of the process (rather than after they have already made a decision) because at that stage they still need others’ advice (Gadassi et al., 2012). Therefore, we hypothesized that individuals who are more decided have a more adaptive career decision-making profile.

Following the arguments of Gati et al. (2010) and the findings of Gadassi et al. (2012), we hypothesized that the adaptive poles of the CDMP dimensions are comprehensive (rather than minimal) Information gathering, analytic (rather than holistic) Information processing (Harren, 1979; although Krieshok, Black, & McKay, 2009, would probably argue that both holistic and analytic Information processing are adaptive), internal (rather than external) Locus of control (Friedberg & Friedberg, 1988; Popma & Taylor, 1990), much Effort invested in the process, low Procrastination (e.g., Antony, Purdon, Huta, & Swinson, 1998; Wolters, 2003), high Speed of making the final decision, low Dependence on others (Phillips, Pazienza, & Walsh, 1984; Singh & Greenhaus, 2004), and low Desire to please others (Phillips et al., 1984; Singh & Greenhaus, 2004). In the present study we expected to replicate this finding; in addition, we tested the hypothesis that this adaptability can be explained by the individual’s confidence in career decision making (i.e., that Aspiration for an ideal occupation’s adaptability is mediated by the CDSE). Although Gati et al. (2011) as well as previous research suggest that frequent Consulting with others (Malka-Gidron, 2006) and high Willingness to compromise (Gati, 1993; Gati & Asher, 2001) are more adaptive, the results in Gadassi et al. (2012) did not support these hypotheses. The final goal of the present study was to shed light on this inconsistency.

Method

Participants

The participants were 295 students in the preacademic preparatory program at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.¹ Students can be admitted to this program if they have completed 12 years of education and wish to improve their GPA, so that they can be admitted to selective majors and institutes of higher education. When enrolling, students are expected to choose one of three general areas (Humanities and Social Sciences; Behavioral Sciences; Natural Sciences). Thus, the sample consisted of participants who intended to enroll in an undergraduate program and also had some idea about the general field of studies that they were interested in. The data of 10 participants (4%) were not included in the analyses because (a) the responses of 7 participants to the validity items were questionable; (b) 2 participants were under 18; and (c) 1 participant did not fill out the CDMP questionnaire. Thus, the analyses were based on the data of 285 participants (155 men and 129 women; 1 participant did not report gender); their mean age was 22.7 (SD = 1.96).

Instruments

The CDMP questionnaire

The CDMP is a self-report questionnaire based on the theoretical model (Gati et al., 2010) presented in the introduction. The 36-item version of the CDMP used here includes 33 statements representing the 11 dimensions of the CDMP. For example, the statement I ultimately make the decision that people expect me to make represents the higher pole of the desire to please others dimension. For each statement, the participants were asked to rate, on a 7-point Likert-type scale, the degree to which they agreed with each statement (1 = do not agree at all, 7 = highly agree). Additionally, the CDMP includes a “warm-up” item (I am currently concerned about my future field of study or occupation) and two validity items ensuring that individuals properly read the items. The validity items were I try to choose the option that is best for me and It makes no difference to me what career I have in the future.

The CDMP have good reliability (the 2-week test–retest reliability of the 11 dimensions ranged from .76 to .86; median internal-consistency reliability of .80; Gati et al., 2010). Confirmatory factor analyses supported the hypothesized independence of the dimensions in both an Israeli and a U.S. sample of young adults. Ginevra, Nota, Soresi, and Gati (2012) reported slightly lower reliabilities for the Italian version of the CDMP among adolescents (a median of .71). In the present sample, the Cronbach’s α internal-consistency reliabilities of the 11 dimensions ranged from .72 to .92.

CDSE scale

The CDSE scale is a self-report questionnaire developed to assess self-efficacy in career decision making (Taylor & Betz, 1983). The original version of the questionnaire included 50 statements regarding the individual’s ability to complete a career decision-making task (e.g., make a career decision and not worry about whether it was right or wrong). The response to each statement reflects the degree to which the individuals are confident they can complete the task, on a scale of 0 (no confidence at all) to 9 (complete confidence). The present study used the short, 25-item version of the CDSE (Betz, Klein, & Taylor, 1996). The Cronbach’s α internal-consistency reliability of the total score of the CDSE was .89.

The EPCD questionnaire

The EPCD is a self-report questionnaire assessing the sources of individuals’ pervasive career decision-making difficulties. We used the short version of the EPCD, with 25 items (Gati et al., 2011). Following a “warm-up” item, each of the 11 difficulty categories (see Saka et al., 2008) is represented by two statements. In addition, two validity items were used to ensure that individuals reply only after properly reading the items. For each statement, participants were asked to rate the extent to which the statement described them on a 9-point scale (1 = does not describe me at all to 9 = describes me well); a higher rating indicates a higher level of difficulty. Previous studies support the construct and convergent validity of the EPCD (Gati et al., 2011; Saka & Gati, 2007; Saka et al., 2008).

The 25-item version of the EPCD has adequate Cronbach’s α internal-consistency reliability (.90 for the total score, and .72, .89, and .84, for Pessimistic Views, Anxiety, and Self-concept and Identity, respectively; Gati et al., 2011). In the present study, the Cronbach’s α internal-consistency reliability was .91 for the total score, and .69, .91, and .81, for Pessimistic Views, Anxiety, and Self-concept and Identity, respectively.

Range of considered alternatives (RCA)

Decision status was evaluated by the RCA, a self-report measure aimed at assessing the degree to which individuals have narrowed down the range of occupational alternatives under consideration. Participants are required to choose one statement that best describes their career decision status: (1) I do not even have a general direction; (2) I have only a general direction; (3) I am deliberating among a small number of specific occupations; (4) I am considering a specific occupation, but would like to explore other options before I make my decision; (5) I know which occupation I am interested in, but I would like to feel sure of my choice; and (6) I am already sure of the occupation I will choose. The RCA has been found useful in measuring advancement toward making a career decision (Saka & Gati, 2007) and assessing the effects of career intervention (Gati et al., 2003).

Demographic questionnaire

Participants were asked to report their age, gender, and, if they wished to receive feedback, an e-mail address.

Procedure

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board. With permission from the director of the preacademic program, the researchers entered the classrooms (which had 20–30 students) and distributed a booklet comprised of the following questionnaires: (1) CDMP, (2) EPCD, (3) CDSE, (4) RCA, and (5) a demographic questionnaire. One hundred forty participants filled out the EPCD before the CDSE, and 145 participants filled them out in the reverse order. No significant differences in the scores of the CDSE and the EPCD were found between the two orders of administration (all ps > .42). Participants received personal feedback based on their responses to the EPCD via e-mail approximately 2 weeks after filling out the questionnaires.

Preliminary Analyses

Decision status

The distribution of the RCA responses in the present sample was skewed: Only 9 (3.2%) individuals responded 1 = I do not even have a general direction, whereas 110 (38.6%) individuals responded 6 = I am already sure of the occupation I will choose. We classified responses 1, 2, and 3 as undecided, 4 or 5 as partially decided, and 6 as decided. The undecided group included 72 participants, the partially decided group 98 participants, and the decided group 110 individuals. Five participants skipped the RCA question.

To ensure that being in a more advanced decision status group indeed indicates higher levels of adaptability, we conducted one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with Decision Status as the independent variable and the CDSE as the dependent variable, and a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with the Decision Status as the independent variable, and the three EPCD clusters as the dependent variables. Appendix C presents the means and SDs of the three Decision Status groups and the results of the one-way ANOVAs and Tukey’s post hoc tests assessing the differences between the EPCD and CDSE means of the three decision status groups. As can be seen in Appendix C, all the ANOVAs yielded significant results, and the post hoc tests revealed that individuals who were more advanced in the decision-making process did indeed have higher levels of career decision-making self-efficacy and lower levels of EPCD in comparison to individuals who were less advanced in the process. These results validate our assumption that being more advanced in the process indicates greater adaptability.

Gender differences

Gender differences in the CDMP dimensions were reported in a previous study (Gati et al., 2010). To test for gender differences in the EPCD clusters, we conducted a MANOVA with the three clusters as dependent variables, revealing a significant effect for Gender, Wilks’ Λ = .92, F(3, 281) = 8.14, p < .001, η² = .08: women had greater difficulties in the clusters of Anxiety, M = 5.33, SD = 2.04 for women; M = 4.26, SD = 1.95 for men, t(383) = 4.49, p < .001, d = 0.53, and Self-concept and Identity, M = 3.97, SD = 1.63 for women; M = 3.40, SD = 1.46 for men, t(383) = 3.10, p < .01, d = 0.37, but no gender differences were found in Pessimistic views, M = 3.93, SD = 1.46 for women; M = 3.81, SD = 1.32 for men, t(383) = 0.73, ns. Furthermore, no gender differences emerged in CDSE levels, t(383)=1.55, ns.

Results

To assess which pole of each of the CDMP dimensions is more adaptive, we used three criteria for adaptability: (a) positive correlation with the CDSE; (b) negative correlation with the EPCD; and (c) being more decided, as reflected in the response to the RCA question. Table 1 presents the CDMP dimensions’ correlations with the CDSE and the EPCD. Table 2 presents the means and SDs of the three Decision Status groups and the results of the one-way ANOVAs and Tukey’s post hoc tests of the differences between the means of the three Decision Status groups.

Table 1.

The Correlations of the 11 CDMP Dimensions With the CDSE and EPCD (The Intercorrelations Between the 11 CDMP Dimensions are Presented in Appendix B).

Scale^a			CDSE (N = 284)	EPCD (N = 285)
Scale^a	Mean	SD	CDSE (N = 284)	PV	An	SI	Total
IG	4.64	1.48	.32***	−.36***	−.28***	−.33***	−.38***
IP	4.71	1.27	.21***	−.06	.06	−.11	−.03
LC	5.27	1.41	.19**	−.37***	−.29***	−.34***	−.40***
EI	4.91	1.21	.30***	−.21***	.08	−.05	−.05
PR	3.70	0.88	−.27***	.43***	.55***	.44***	.58***
SP	3.69	1.60	.22***	−.25***	−.53***	−.40***	−.49***
CO	5.06	1.49	−.05	−.09	.05	.04	.01
DO	2.11	1.15	−.25***	.27***	.35***	.34***	.39***
DP	2.64	1.34	−.16**	.17**	.34***	.44***	.39***
AI	5.04	1.34	.24***	−.18**	−.13*	−.12*	−.17**
WC	3.47	1.61	−.23**	.26***	.30***	.18**	.30***
M			3.79	3.87	4.75	3.66	4.09
SD			0.53	1.38	2.06	1.56	1.40
α			.89	.69	.91	.81	.91

Note. ^aCDMP Scales: AI = aspiration for an “ideal occupation”; CO = consultation with others; DO = dependence on others; DP = desire to please others; EI = effort invested; IG = information gathering; IP = information processing; LC = locus of control; PR = procrastination; SP = speed of making the final decision; WC = willingness to compromise.

EPCD clusters: ; An = Anxiety; PV = Pessimistic views; SI = Self-Concept and Identity.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 2.

Means and SDs of the 11 CDMP Dimensions According to Decision Status Groups (N = 279).

	Decision status
	Undecided (N = 72)		Partially decided (N = 98)		Decided (N = 109)		ANOVA
CDMP scale	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	F(2, 276)	η²
IG	4.24^a1	1.54	4.50^b	1.43	5.00^ab	1.38	6.36**	.04
IP	4.71	1.30	4.74	1.18	4.70	1.36	0.02	—
LC	5.07^a	1.44	5.09^b	1.33	5.57^ab	1.37	4.19*	.03
EI	4.74	1.22	4.84	1.16	5.06	1.25	1.65	—
PR	4.03^a	0.80	3.83^b	0.83	3.39^ab	0.88	13.86***	.09
SP	2.96^ab	1.41	3.60^ac	1.59	4.23^bc	1.56	15.07***	.10
CO	5.20	1.34	5.12	1.49	4.86	1.58	1.37	—
DO	2.38^a	1.25	2.16	1.16	1.93^a	1.04	3.50*	.02
DP	2.86	1.30	2.76	1.27	2.43	1.37	2.78	—
AI	4.64^a	1.36	5.12	1.25	5.24^a	1.36	4.65*	.03
WC	4.00^a	1.43	3.90^b	1.40	2.72^ab	1.60	22.42***	.14

Note. ANOVA = analysis of variance; CDMP Scales: AI = aspiration for an “ideal occupation”; CO = consultation with others; DO = dependence on others; DP = desire to please others; EI = effort invested; IG = information gathering; IP = information processing; LC = locus of control; PR = procrastination; SP = speed of making the final decision; WC = willingness to compromise.

¹Means with the same superscript are statistically different (Tukey’s post hoc test, p < .01).

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

As hypothesized, higher levels of Information gathering and Speed of making the final decision, lower levels of Procrastination and Dependence on others, and a more internal Locus of control were found to be adaptive by all three criteria. They were associated with higher levels of career self-efficacy, lower levels of EPCD, and being more advanced in the career decision-making process.

Furthermore, as hypothesized, higher levels of Effort invested, and lower levels of Desire to please others, were found to be more adaptive by two criteria: they were associated with higher levels of self-efficacy and lower levels of career decision-making difficulties. More analytic Information processing was associated with only one of the adaptability criteria—higher levels of CDSE.

In line with our hypothesis, higher levels of Aspiration for an ideal occupation were found to be more adaptive according to all three criteria. To test the hypothesis that CDSE mediates the adaptability of this dimension, we first computed the correlations of Aspiration for an ideal occupation with the EPCD while controlling for the (Z-score transformed) CDSE score (which reflects self-confidence regarding career decision making). Indeed, once the CDSE was controlled for, the correlations of Aspiration for an ideal occupation with the EPCD clusters and total scores were no longer significant, r(281) = −.11, p = .08 with Pessimistic Views; r(281) = −.03, p = .58 with Anxiety; r(281) = −.03, p = .59 with Self-concept and Identity; and r(281) = −.07, p = .26 with the EPCD total score), thus meeting the mediation criteria set by Baron and Kenny (1986). Second, an analysis of covariance testing for differences in Aspiration for an ideal occupation among the three decision status groups while controlling for CDSE levels (transformed to Z score) revealed a significant effect of the CDSE score, F(1, 275) = 10.56, p = .001, η² = .04, on the Decision Status groups, and the Aspiration for an ideal occupation effect was no longer significant after controlling for CDSE level, F(2, 275) = 1.83, p = .16. Again, these results support our hypothesis that self-efficacy mediates the adaptability of Aspiration for an ideal occupation.

Contrary to the CDMP model’s hypothesis (Gati et al., 2010), lower levels of Willingness to compromise were found to be more adaptive according to all three criteria. These unexpected results led us to the new hypothesis that, as with Aspiration for an ideal occupation, Willingness to compromise may reflect individuals’ (lack of) confidence in their ability to actualize the occupational choice they aspire to.

Finally, the only dimension that did not have a clear adaptive level was Consulting with others. It was not significantly correlated with the CDSE or the EPCD, and there were no significant differences in its mean scale-score among the three decision status groups. This unexpected finding is incompatible with previous findings indicating that consulting more with others (together with investing more in the career decision-making process) leads to better occupational decisions (e.g., a lower frequency of changing majors; Malka-Gidron, 2006), and may be due to the sample’s homogenous nature. Therefore, future studies on a more heterogeneous sample are needed to replicate this finding.

Discussion

The present study investigated the adaptability of the CDMP dimensions with a sample of prefreshman students attending a special preparatory program at a university. We applied three criteria—(a) the CDSE, (b) the EPCD, and (c) the individual’s stage in the career decision-making process—as the criteria for the adaptability of the CDMP dimensions. The results of the present study supported most of the hypotheses and replicated previous findings regarding the adaptability of the CDMP dimensions (Gadassi et al., 2012). Specifically, more comprehensive Information gathering, more analytic Information processing, more internal Locus of control, more Effort invested, lower levels of Procrastination, greater Speed of making the final decision, less Dependence on others, and lower Desire to please others were found to be the adaptive levels of the dimensions.

Moreover, in contrast to the predictions of the CDMP model (Gati et al., 2010), but as previously found (Gadassi et al., 2012), higher (rather than the predicted lower) levels of Aspiration for an ideal occupation were found to be more adaptive, but this higher adaptability was fully mediated by career decision-making self-efficacy. Therefore, the results support our contention that Aspiration for an ideal occupation, rather than reflecting individuals’ perfectionism or unrealistic views of their possible occupational choices, in fact reflects their confidence in their ability to achieve the occupational choice they desire.

In addition, contrary to our hypothesis, a lower level of Willingness to compromise was found more adaptive. Thus, it appears that willingness to compromise may reflect a lack in confidence in achieving one’s occupational goals rather than an understanding that compromises are part of the career decision-making process. Finally, no level of Consulting with others was found to be more adaptive than any other. A possible explanation for this null finding for Consulting with others (which is consistent with the findings of Gadassi et al., 2012) is that a third variable may moderate the association of Consulting with others and adaptability. Specifically, it is possible that individuals who tend to consult with others, but are also high on Dependence on others and the Desire to please others, have a maladaptive pattern: they tend to use consultation as just another way of overrelying on others to make their decisions for them. On the other hand, individuals who tend to consult with others, but without depending on them or trying to please them, may benefit greatly from such consultation. Further research is needed to test this hypothesis.

Limitations and Future Research

The present research has three main limitations. First, the criteria used to assess the adaptability of the dimensions were all assessed concurrently; therefore, our conclusions regarding the adaptability of the measures cannot address the directionality of the associations between the CDMP and the criteria measures. This issue was especially evident for the dimension of Aspiration for an ideal occupation, as in the current study high levels of this dimension were more adaptive, reflecting individuals’ higher self-efficacy. However, it is likely that, in the long term, high levels of Aspiration for an ideal occupation may delay making a career decision, especially for individuals whose actual abilities do not match their aspirations based on their self-estimated abilities. Second, our findings may be specific to Israeli culture; it is possible that different poles of the dimensions would be differently adaptable in other cultures. Future studies are needed to replicate these findings in other cultural contexts. Finally, the participants were not representative of the general population of young adults. The students in the preacademic preparatory program are a fairly homogenous group; they have to be at least partially decided about their future career when they enter the program, as they have to choose a track for their studies (Natural Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities, or Computer Science and Engineering). Therefore, the results based on these students have limited generalizability, especially for undecided young people, who are most likely to seek career counseling. Nevertheless, the results of the present study were highly similar to those obtained in a more general population of deliberating young adults (Gadassi et al., 2012).

Counseling Implications

Implementing the conclusions of the present study in career counseling can assist counselors in several ways in planning career interventions. First, the present study provides career counselors with information about which of the poles (if any) of each dimension is more adaptive, and therefore which strategy is best to direct the client to use (e.g., dealing with Procrastination, which was found to be associated with Dependence on others and Desire to please others; Gati et al., 2012). The information regarding the adaptability of the dimensions can be presented directly to the client, as a kind of psychoeducation in the career decision-making process.

Second, our unexpected findings that Aspiration for an ideal occupation and Willingness to compromise are in fact indicative of individuals’ self-efficacy could be important for career counselors. Specifically, career counselors encountering individuals who have what may seem to be overly idealistic aspirations, and not enough willingness to compromise, should consider interpreting these characteristics not as maladaptive, but as a reflection of the individuals’ great confidence in their own ability to achieve their occupational goal. In such cases, counselors should assess whether these clients’ abilities do indeed match their self-confidence.

Generally, being aware of a client’s career decision-making profile makes it possible to tailor counseling interventions more sensitively for the specific client (Gati et al., 2010). Previous research suggests that career-counseling interventions tailored to individuals’ career decision-making style can facilitate their decision-making process (Phillips & Jome, 2006) and presumably lead to better decisions (Phillips & Pazienza, 1988). Further research on the CDMP is needed to determine which career interventions would be more beneficial to individuals with different career-decision profiles. For example, it is likely that individuals who are more analytic in their Information processing would benefit more from using a systematic computerized guidance system than those with a more holistic style.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Acknowledgments

We thank Yasmin Abo-foul, Adi Amit, Lisa Asulin-Peretz, Naomi Goldblum, Valentina Izrailevitch, Tami Keneth-Cohen, Nimrod Levin, Yulia Lipshitz, Maya Perez, Dana Vertsberger, and Tirza Wilner for their comments on previous versions of this article. Part of the present research was presented as a poster at the annual APA Convention in 2010.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This research was supported in part by a grant from the Israel Science Foundation (Grant 512/09) and by the Samuel and Esther Melton Chair of the second author.

Note

References

Antony

M. M.

Purdon

C. L.

Huta

Swinson

R. P.

(1998). Dimensions of perfectionism across the anxiety disorders. Behavior Research and Therapy, 36, 1143–1154. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(98)00083-7

Arroba

(1977). Styles of decision making and their use: An empirical study. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 5, 149–158. doi: 10.1080/03069887708258110

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

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. L.

Taylor

K. M.

(1996). Evaluation of a short form of the career decision-making self-efficacy scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 47–57. doi:10.1177/106907279600400103

Betz

N. E.

Serling

D. A.

(1993). Construct validity of fear of commitment as an indicator of career indecisiveness. Journal of Career Assessment, 1, 21–34. doi:10.1177/106907279300100104

Creed

P. A.

Patton

Bartrum

(2004). Internal and external barriers, cognitive style, and the career development variables of focus and indecision. Journal of Career Development, 30, 277–294. doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1023/B:JOCD.0000025116.17855.ea

Friedberg

R. D.

Friedberg

B. A.

(1988). Correlates of career indecision. Journal of Human Behavior and Learning, 5, 40–43.

Gadassi

Gati

Dayan

(2012). The adaptability of career decision-making profiles. Journal of Counseling Psychology, doi:10.1037/a0029155

10.

Gati

(1993). Career compromises. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 416–424. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.40.4.416

11.

Gati

Asher

(2001). The PIC model for career decision making: Prescreening, In-depth exploration, and Choice. In Leong

F. T.

Barak

(Eds.), Contemporary models in vocational psychology (pp. 7–54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

12.

Gati

Asulin-Peretz

Fisher

(2012). Emotional and personality-related career decision-making difficulties: A three-year follow-up. The Counseling Psychologist, 40, 6–27. doi:10.1177/0011000011398726

13.

Gati

Gadassi

Hadadi

Ansenberg

Friedman

Asulin-Peretz

(2011). Emotional and personality-related aspects of career decision-making difficulties: Facets of career indecisiveness. Journal of Career Assessment, 19, 3–20. doi:10.1177/1069072710382525

14.

Gati

Gadassi

Mashiah-Cohen

(2012). Career decision-making profiles vs. styles: Convergent and incremental validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81, 2–16. doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.03.004

15.

Gati

Kleiman

Saka

Zakai

(2003). Perceived benefits of using an internet-based interactive career planning system. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 272–286. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00049-0

16.

Gati

Landman

Davidovitch

Asulin-Peretz

Gadassi

(2010). From career decision-making styles to career decision-making profiles: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 277–291. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.11.001

17.

Gati

Levin

(2012). The stability and structure of career decision-making profiles: A one-year follow-up. Journal of Career Assessment, 20 (4), 390–403. Doi:10.1177/1069072712448892.

18.

Gati

Tal

(2008). Decision-making models and career guidance. In Athanasou

Van Esbroeck

(Eds.), International handbook of career guidance (pp. 157–185). Berlin, Germany: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6230-8_8

19.

Ginevra

M. C.

Nota

Soresi

Gati

(2012). Career decision-making profiles of Italian adolescents. Journal of Career Assessment, 20 , 375–389.

20.

Harren

V. A.

(1979). A model of career decision making for college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 119–133. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/0001-8791(79)90065-4

21.

Kelly

K. R.

Gunn

J. E.

(2007). How decision-making style affects the career decision process. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Educational Studies, Purdue University.

22.

Koen

Klehe

U.-C.

Van Vianen

A. E. M.

Zikic

Nauta

(2010). Job-search strategies and reemployment quality: The impact of career adaptability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 126–139. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.02.004

23.

Krieshok

T. S.

Black

M. D.

McKay

R. A.

(2009). Career decision making: The limits of rationality and the abundance of non-conscious processes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 275–290. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2009.04.006

24.

Luzzo

D. A.

Day

M. A.

(1999). Effects of strong interest inventory feedback on career decision-making self-efficacy and social cognitive career beliefs. Journal of Career Assessment, 7, 1–17. doi:10.1177/106907279900700101

25.

Malka-Gidron

(2006). The association between personality and emotional career decision-making difficulties and change of majors among university students. Unpublished paper. School of Education, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (in Hebrew).

26.

Nota

Ferrari

Solberg

V. S. H.

Soresi

(2007). Career search self-efficacy, family support, and career indecision with Italian youth. Journal of Career Assessment, 15, 181–193. doi:10.1177/1069072706298019

27.

Peterson

S. L.

(1993). Career decision-making self-efficacy and social and academic integration of underprepared college students: Variations based on background characteristics. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 18, 77–115.

28.

Phillips

S. D.

Jome

L. M.

(2006). Career decision-making styles. In Greenhaus

J. H.

Callanan

G. A.

. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of career development (pp. 95–97). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

29.

Phillips

S. D.

Pazienza

N. J.

(1988). History and theory of the assessment of career development and decision making. In Walsh

W. B.

Osipow

S. H.

(Eds.), Career decision making (pp. 1–31). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

30.

Phillips

S. D.

Pazienza

Walsh

(1984). Decision-making styles and progress in occupational decision-making. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 25, 96–105. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/0001-8791(84)90039-3

31.

Popma

Taylor

K. M.

(1990). An examination of the relationships among career decision making self-efficacy, career salience, locus of control, and vocational indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 17–31. Doi:10.1016/0001-8791(90)90004-L

32.

Saka

Gati

(2007). Emotional and personality-related aspects of persistent career decision-making difficulties. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 340–358. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.08.003

33.

Saka

Gati

Kelly

K. R.

(2008). Emotional and personality-related aspects of career decision-making difficulties. Journal of Career Assessment, 16, 403–424. doi: 10.1177/1069072708318900

34.

Savickas

M. L.

(1997). Career adaptability: An integrative construct for life-span, life-space theory. The Career Development Quarterly, 45, 247–259. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.1997.tb00469.x

35.

Savickas

M. L.

(2005). The theory and practice of career construction. In Brown

Lent

(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 42–70). New York, NY: John Wiley.

36.

Shiloh

Salton

Sharabi

(2002). Individual differences in rational and intuitive thinking styles as predictors of heuristic responses and framing effects. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 415–429. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00034-4

37.

Singh

Greenhaus

J. H.

(2004). The relation between career decision-making strategies and person–job fit: A study of job changers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 198–221. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00034-4

38.

Taylor

K. M.

Betz

N. E.

(1983). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the understanding and treatment of career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 63–81. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/0001-8791(83)90006-4

39.

Wolters

C. A.

(2003). Understanding procrastination from a self-regulated learning perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 179–187. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.179