The Influence of Family of Origin Relationships on Career Thoughts

Abstract

Family of origin relationships are an important influence on career decision-making. The current study investigates the relationship between family cohesion, expressiveness and conflict and dysfunctional career thoughts. The Family Environment Scale - Form R (Moos & Moos, 2009) measured the family environment and the Career Thoughts Inventory (Sampson, Peterson, Lenz, Reardon, & Saunders, 1996) measured dysfunctional career thoughts. Participants were undergraduate students at a large Southern University. The results found that higher levels of family conflict and lower levels of family expressiveness were associated with higher levels of decision-making confusion, commitment anxiety, and external conflict. Implications for career counselors are discussed.

Keywords

undergraduates/early adults sample populations career decision-making career commitment research content areas

Career theorists and researchers have long argued that the family is an important influence on career decision-making (Brachter, 1982; Gottfredson, 1981; Roe, 1956; Schulenberg, Vondracek, & Crouter, 1984; Super, 1980; Whiston & Keller, 2004b). For example, Gottfredson (1981) posited that the family directs and limits the range of acceptable occupational alternatives for its family members. Duffy and Dik (2009) viewed the family as one set of external influences on the career development process. Similarly, Sampson, Reardon, Peterson, and Lenz (2004) referred to the influence of family as one contextual factor influencing the career decision-making process. Blustein (2001, 2004, 2006) and others (Lopez & Andrews, 1987; Schultheiss, 2003, 2006) described the impact of relationships between family members as critical in a wide variety of career-related decisions. While there is a growing body of evidence supporting the impact of a number of family variables such as enmeshment, parental support, and attachment (e.g., Guerra & Baumgart-Rieker, 1999; Nota, Ferrari, Solberg, & Soresi, 2007; Wolfe & Betz, 2004) and other studies have investigated the impact of family cohesion, expressiveness, and conflict (e.g., Johnson, Buboltz, & Nichols, 1999; Shin & Kelly, 2013), few studies have focused on the impact of family of origin relationships, specifically cohesion, conflict, and expressiveness on dysfunctional career thoughts (Dodge, 2001; Smith, 2011; Whiston & Keller, 2004b).

Historically, research related to family and career development has focused primarily on important proximal relationships such as family, friend, peer, and school relationships (Kenny & Medvide, 2013). Considering the extant theory and research (Blustein, 2001, 2004, 2006; Duffy & Dik, 2009) as well as time spent with one’s family of origin, it is a reasonable assumption that family of origin relationships influences the development of a number of important career tasks encountered by young adults. These developmental career tasks also emerge within the context of the family life cycle. The influence of the family of origin on the ability of its members to accomplish life tasks is important throughout the individual’s life but is particularly important, as they move into adulthood and make decisions about careers (McGoldrick & Shibusawa, 2012). Within a family life cycle perspective, the primary task for a young adult in college is to negotiate their relationship with their family as they enter the adult world of work and relationships. The ability of the individual to balance dependence with independence and move forward with respect to work and career are influenced by the nature of the relationship dynamics of their family of origin.

To date, the research conducted addressing the relationship between family and career development has been focused in two primary areas. One line of familial career development inquiry has focused on the relationship of parental attachment, support, family enmeshment, and parental encouragement of independence on important career development tasks and primarily career self-efficacy (Alliman-Brissett, Turner, & Skovolt, 2004; Guay, Senecal, Gauthier, & Fernet, 2003; Guerra & Braungart-Rieker, 1999; Kinnier, Brigman, & Noble, 1990; Nota et al., 2007; O’Brien, Friedman, Tipton, & Linn, 2000; Wolfe & Betz, 2004). Research has consistently found that parental attachment, positive support, and parents supporting autonomy are significantly related to higher levels of career decision-making self-efficacy (Wolfe & Betz, 2004). A second line of inquiry has focused on the influence of family cohesion, expressiveness, and conflict on career development constructs. To date, studies have found that a high degree of family cohesiveness, expressiveness, and low family conflict had a positive effect on career optimism, motivation, and vocational identity (Johnson et al., 1999; Shin & Kelly, 2013; Penick, 1992). In terms of parental gender, research has found that when mothers perceive lower levels of family conflict and fathers perceive higher levels of family expression, children reported higher levels of vocational identity. Research has provided evidence of a relationship between the student’s perception of lower family conflict and higher levels of expressiveness and higher levels of vocational identity, career decision-making self-efficacy, and career planning attitudes (Hargrove, Creagh, & Burgess, 2002; Hargove, Inman, & Crane, 2005). Finally, Smith (2011) and Dodge (2001), in studies of college students, found that higher levels of family conflict were associated with higher levels of dysfunctional career thoughts, conceptualized as decision-making confusion, commitment anxiety, and external conflict (Sampson, Reardon, Peterson, & Lenz, 2004).

Based on the research conducted to date, there is sufficient evidence to support the individual’s family of origin as a major contextual factor that influences the career development constructs of career self-efficacy, vocational identity, and career planning. However, there is a noticeable lack of career research examining how the individual’s interaction with the family of origin impacts one’s career cognition. Research has consistently identified the career development process as cognitively and affectively mediated and that these cognitive processes and affect are the foundation for the constructs of career self-efficacy, vocational identity, and effective career planning (Strauser, 2014). Research into family interaction and career cognition would provide much needed insight on how the quality and strength of the family relationship impact the development of career cognitions. Research in this area would potentially provide valuable knowledge that goes beyond the contextual influences of family to a more profound understanding of how the family influences one’s affect and cognitive processes related to career decision-making, the formation of career values and interests, and cognitive conceptualization of the broader educational and employment environment. However, before research can be conducted to address these complex issues, there is a need for research addressing the basic relationship between family of origin interactions and career cognition and affect.

One career theory that explicitly considers family contextual factors is Cognitive Information Processing (CIP; Sampson et al., 2004). CIP theory focuses on the individual’s capability to make effective career decisions and the complexity of the individual’s external situation. Complexity considers family contextual influences, as well as other influences such as broad economic trends, that affect an individual’s ability to make effective career decision. A relational understanding of career decision-making posits that interpersonal relationships within the family assist in the development of behaviors that can either inhibit or support functional career decision-making. Within the context of career information processing, career thoughts are hypothesized as cognitions ranging from functional to dysfunctional (Sampson, Peterson, Lenz, Reardon, & Saunders, 1996). These career thoughts are developed through a combination of the individual’s vocational cognitions and behaviors and contextual factors, including the family. Individuals may verbalize negative or dysfunctional career thoughts that can make career decision-making problematic. The development of the CIP approach posits that individuals have dysfunctional career thoughts related to (a) initiating or maintaining the career decision-making process because of affective barriers and difficulty in understanding how to make a decision, (b) committing to a career choice because of the anxiety about potential outcomes, and (c) problems effectively integrating the opinions of others with regard to their career decision. These three types of dysfunctional career thoughts were termed decision-making confusion, commitment anxiety, and external conflict (Sampson et al., 1996, 2004).

The purpose of the current study is to investigate the relationship between family of origin relationships and dysfunctional career thoughts. The current study posits that family of origin relationship dynamics, an important contextual factor, influences an individual’s ability to cognitively and affectively process career information therefore impacting the ability to initiate the career decision-making process, commit to a career choice, and effectively integrate the career influences of others. It is hypothesized that lower levels of family cohesion and expressiveness and higher levels of family conflict would result in higher levels of dysfunctional career thoughts. The study considers the following research question: What is the impact of family cohesion, family expressiveness, and family conflict in the participant’s family of origin on dysfunctional career thoughts, specifically decision-making confusion, commitment anxiety, and external conflict?

Method

Participants

The participants for this study were 141 college students at a large public University in the South. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 60 (M = 22.5, SD = 6.8). A majority of participants were female (81%; n = 114), single (89%; n = 125) with no children (84%; n = 118), and either African American (47%; n = 67) or Caucasian (45%; n = 63). The most common educational attainment was completion of a high school diploma (75%; n = 105). Approximately 36% of the participants had incomes up to US$29,999 (n = 51), 27% of participants had incomes between US$30,000 and US$59,999 (n = 38), 32% with incomes of US$60,000 or above (n = 45), and 5% not reporting income (n = 7; see Table 1).

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics.

Participant
Age
18–22	77 (n = 108)
23–30	15 (n = 21)
>30	8 (n = 12)
Gender (%)—female	81 (n = 114)
Ethnicity (%)
African American	47 (n = 67)
Caucasian	45 (n = 63)
Hispanic	4 (n = 5)
Asian/Pacific Islander	1 (n = 2)
Other	3 (n = 4)
Education (%)
High school diploma	75 (n = 105)
Junior college	13 (n = 9)
Bachelors	11 (n = 16)
Unidentified	1 (n = 1)
No. of children
0	84 (n = 118)
1 or 2	14 (n = 20)
3 or 4	2 (n = 3)
Marital status (%)
Single	89 (n = 125)
Married	7 (n = 10)
Separated/divorced/widowed	3 (n = 5)
Unidentified	1 (n = 1)
Income
<US$29,000	36 (n = 51)
US$30,000–$59,999	27 (n = 38)
US>$60,000	32 (n = 45)
Not reporting	5 (n = 7)
Family of origin
Percentage lived with
Mother	83 (n = 117)
Father	59 (n = 83)
Brother	48 (n = 68)
Sister	43 (n = 60)
Education (%)—mother
< High school diploma	9 (n = 21)
High school diploma	40 (n = 57)
Junior college	17 (n = 24)
Bachelors/graduate	34 (n = 48)
Education father
<High school diploma	14 (n = 20)
High school diploma	40 (n = 57)
Junior college	13 (n = 18)
Bachelors/graduate	34 (n = 48)
Not reporting	2 (n = 2)
Income
<US$29,000	20 (n = 28)
US$30,000–$59,999	38 (n = 54)
US>$60,000	37 (n = 52)
Not reporting	5 (n = 7)

Note. N = 141.

Participants reported demographic information about their family of origin. Participants were asked to provide information about the house they grew up in. Participants reported that 83% lived with their mother (n = 117), 59% lived with their father (n = 83), 48% lived with a brother (n = 68), and 43% lived with a sister (n = 60). The most common educational attainment for mothers (40%; n = 57) and fathers (40%; n = 57) was a high school diploma. Approximately 20% of the participants had family of origin incomes up to US$29,999 (n = 28), 38% of participants had incomes between US$30,000 and US$59,999 (n = 54), 37% with incomes of US$60,000 or above (n = 52), and 5% not reporting income (n = 7; see Table 1).

Instruments

Career Thoughts Inventory (CFI)

The CTI (Sampson et al., 1996) is based on the CIP theoretical approach to career development and career services (Sampson et al., 2004) and a cognitive therapy approach to mental health and mental health services (Beck, 1976; Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emory, 1979). For the purposes of the instrument, career thoughts are defined as outcomes of one’s thinking about assumptions, attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, feelings, plans, and/or strategies related to career problem solving and decision-making. The CTI consists of 48 items and produces three construct scales: (a) the Decision-Making Confusion Scale measures the extent to which an individual’s emotions or lack of decision-making skill knowledge interferes with his or her ability to make a career decision; (b) the Commitment Anxiety Scale measures the impact anxiety has on a person’s ability to commit to a career decision, and (c) the External Conflict Scale measures how well the person utilizes input from others and his or her self-perception in decision-making. Respondents use a 4-point rating scale with responses ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly agree). Examples of items are (a) no field of study or occupation interests me at this time (Decision-Making Confusion), (b) the views of important people in my life interfere with choosing a field of study or occupation (External Conflict), and (c) I’m afraid of overlooking an occupation (Commitment Anxiety). Subscale scores were derived by summing the items. Higher scores indicate greater level of the construct. Evidence of the validity of the CTI is provided by Sampson, Peterson, Lenz, Reardon, and Saunders (1996). Principle components analysis provided support for three factors, specifically, Decision-Making Confusion, Commitment Anxiety, and External Conflict. Correlations between the three scales of the CTI and measures of similar constructs (i.e., My Vocational Situation, Career Decision Scale, and Career Decision Profile) provide support for the convergent validity of the CTI. Finally, the CTI scores were significantly different between college students seeking career services and students not seeking career services, providing evidence of the criterion-related validity of the CTI. Internal consistency reliability coefficients have been reported between .90 and .94 for Decision-Making Confusion, .79 and .91 for Commitment Anxiety, and .74 and .81 for External Conflict. In this study, an internal consistency estimates of .95 for Decision-Making Confusion, .90 for Commitment Anxiety, and .81 for External Conflict were found.

Family Environment Scale–Form R (FES-R)

The FES-R (Moos & Moos, 2009) is a 90-item self-report questionnaire used to assess a family member’s perception of the social climate of the participant’s family of origin along three dimensions, specifically, relationships, personal growth, and system maintenance. The Relationship dimension measures the level of cohesion, expressiveness, and conflict within the family, the Personal growth dimension measures the manner in which the family encourages personal growth, and the System Maintenance dimension measures level of structure and rule making within the family. For the purposes of the current study, the Relationship dimension subscales were used. The Relationship dimension consists of three subscales: (a) cohesion measures the degree of commitment, help, and support provided by family members; (b) expressiveness measures the extent to which family members are encouraged to express their feelings; (c) conflict measures the amount of openly expressed anger and conflict among family members. Each subscale consists of 10 statements to which the respondent indicates they either agree (true) or disagree (false) to the statement. Subscale scores range from 0 to 9. Higher scores indicate a higher level of the subscale construct as perceived by the respondent’s family of origin. Examples of statements are (a) family members really help and support one another (Cohesiveness), (b) we fight a lot in our family (Expressiveness), (c) we feel it I important to be the best at whatever you do (Conflict). Internal consistency reliability has been reported for Cohesiveness (.78), Expressiveness (.69), and Conflict (.75). Research also provides evidence of adequate convergent and discriminant validity (Moos & Moos, 2009). In this study, internal consistency estimates of .79 for Cohesiveness, .56 for Expressiveness, and .78 for Conflict were found.

Demographics form

The demographic form asked the participant to supply the following information on their age, gender, ethnicity, education, income, and number of children and information concerning their family of origin, specifically, who lived in the house they grew up in, father and mother education, family income, and the last year the participant lived in the family of origin house.

Procedures

Faculty in the College of Education at a Southern urban university agreed to distribute survey packets. The survey was one of several options that students had for completing part of their course requirements. Of the 220 distributed to faculty, 153 students agreed to complete the survey. Research packets distributed to the students contained a demographic form developed for this study, the two test instruments and an informed consent form. Participants were informed that their participation was voluntary, that all the data collected would be confidential, and that they were free to withdraw at any time without penalty. Participants completed and returned it to their course instructor. Completed and unused test packets were returned to the principle investigator for data entry. Twelve respondents had incomplete data and were dropped from the sample reducing the total number of participants from 153 to 141.

Data Analysis

First, a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was run to examine whether dysfunctional career thoughts differed by demographic factors including gender, age, parents’ education, and family income. Among them, parents’ education was taken as the average of the father’s and mother’s education levels. If any of the variables were significantly different, they would be included in the multiple regression models in the subsequent analysis. During the second step, multiple regression was used to examine the impact of family relationships on dysfunctional career thoughts of college students, measured by decision-making confusion, commitment anxiety, and external conflict. Four regression models were constructed; all shared the same three independent measures of family relationships, including family cohesion, family expressiveness, and family conflict. The dependent variables of the Models 1–3 are the three subscales of the CTI: Decision-Making Confusion, Commitment Anxiety, and External Conflict, respectively. Given the relatively small sample size, the level of significance was set at .10 when examining the model significance and the regression coefficients. Effect sizes were indicated by the values of the model R ².

Results

Tables 2 and 3 present the bivariate correlations and descriptive information of the variables, respectively. Information in Table 2 indicates that demographic characteristics have very weak associations with measures of dysfunctional career thoughts. In contrast, moderate correlations are observed between measures of family relationships and dysfunctional career thoughts. Given the relatively strong correlations among decision-making confusion, commitment anxiety, and external conflict, a MANCOVA was run to verify statistically whether college students’ dysfunctional career thoughts are a function of their demographic characteristics. The multivariate results showed that all tests failed to reach statistical significance at α = .10 level. In Table 4, univariate F tests from the MANCOVA output are provided to show that student’s age, gender, family income, and parents’ education did not contribute significantly to the variances of the four measures of dysfunctional career thoughts.

Table 2.

Bivariate Correlations Between Variables.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Gender	—
2. Family income	.09	—
3. Parents’ education	−.03	.29***	—
4. Age	.08	.02	−0.15	—
5. Expressiveness	.13	−.01	−.09	−.05	—
6. Cohesion	.14	.07	−.04	−.01	.56***	—
7. Conflict	−.14	−.05	.12	−.05	−.36***	−.64***	—
8. Decision-making confusion	−.03	.08	.05	−.04	−.31***	−.36***	.35***	—
9. Commitment anxiety	−.15	.08	.04	−.09	−.28***	−.28***	.38***	.81***	—
10. External conflict	−.08	.10	.10	−.13	−.35***	−.32***	.37***	.71***	.69***	—

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

Table 3.

Descriptive Information of the Independent and Dependent Variables.

	Mean	SD	Skewness	Minimum	Maximum
Age	22.53	6.78	3.27	18	60
Family income	6.13	3.06	0.27	1	11
Parents’ education	2.81	0.96	0.21	1	5
Expressiveness	5.31	2.03	−0.34	0	9
Cohesion	6.43	2.42	−1.06	0	9
Conflict	3.21	2.48	0.68	0	9
Decision-making confusion	22.81	8.15	0.67	14	47
Commitment anxiety	21.13	6.70	0.09	10	37
External conflict	9.48	3.48	0.43	5	18

Note. Gender (Female = 1; Male = 2) is also one of the controlled variables in the regression models. Females account for 81% of the sample (n = 141).

Table 4.

MANCOVA Tests of Relationships Between Demographic Factors and Dysfunctional Career Thoughts.

Source	Dependent Variable	SS	df	MS	F	p
Family income	Decision-making confusion	57.45	1	57.45	1.30	.26
	Commitment anxiety	14.13	1	14.13	1.17	.28
	External conflict	55.96	1	55.96	0.81	.37
Age	Decision-making confusion	56.49	1	56.49	1.28	.26
	Commitment anxiety	18.64	1	18.64	1.54	.22
	External conflict	9.50	1	9.50	0.14	.71
Parents’ education	Decision-making confusion	1.22	1	1.22	0.03	.87
	Commitment anxiety	5.28	1	5.28	0.44	.51
	External conflict	8.50	1	8.50	0.12	.73
Gender	Decision-making confusion	115.97	1	115.97	2.62	.11
	Commitment anxiety	6.24	1	6.24	0.51	.47
	External conflict	3.24	1	3.24	0.05	.83
Error	Decision-making confusion	5,665.84	128	44.26
	Commitment anxiety	1,550.77	128	12.12
	External conflict	8,790.76	128	68.68
Total	Decision-making confusion	5,896.99	132
	Commitment anxiety	1,607.20	132
	External conflict	8,890.29	132

Note. MANCOVA = multivariate analysis of covariance; SS = Sum of Square; MS = Mean Square.

As such, regression analysis was conducted excluding the four demographic variables. Note that the mean, standard deviation, and skewness values in Table 3 suggest that some of the variables depart from a normal distribution. Nonetheless, close examination of the regression residuals do not suggest significant violations of the underlying assumptions of normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity. All four regression models were free of multicollinearity, given that all variance inflation factors are lower than 5. Details of the four regression models are presented in Table 5.

Table 5.

Summary Information of the Three Regression Models.

Dependent Variable (Model R ²)	Independent Variables	b	t (p)	β
Decision-making confusion (R ² = .17)	Expressiveness	−.64	−1.71 (.09)	.16
	Cohesion	−.49	−1.31 (.19)	.15
	Conflict	.66	1.99 (.05)	.20
Commitment anxiety (R ² = .17)	Expressiveness	−.58	−1.89 (.01)	.18
	Cohesion	.06	0.20 (.84)	.02
	Conflict	.88	3.22 (.002)	.33
External conflict (R ² = .19)	Expressiveness	−.43	−2.685 (.008)	.25
	Cohesion	−.02	−0.14 (.89)	.02
	Conflict	.38	2.70 (.008)	.27

Note. The regression constant of the three models are 27.3, 21.0, and 10.

Decision-Making Confusion (Model 1)

Together, family expressiveness, family cohesion, and family conflict explain approximately 17% (R ² = .174, p < .001) of the total variance in college students’ career-related decision-making confusion. Of the three independent variables, increased family conflict was significantly associated with elevated decision-making confusion. Expressiveness was also statistically significant with a regression coefficient b = −0.64, which has p = .09.

Commitment Anxiety (Model 2)

Close to 17% (R ² = .166, p < .001) of the total variance in commitment anxiety is attributable to family expressiveness, family cohesion, and family conflict. Similar to Model 1, family conflict was the most significant predictor and students who reported a greater level of family conflict tended to indicate higher levels of commitment anxiety (b = 0.882, p = .002). Expressiveness (b = −0.585, p = .061) was also statistically significant.

External Conflict (Model 3)

Roughly 19% (R ² = .191, p < .001) of the total variance in external conflict can be explained by the linear combination of family expressiveness, family cohesion, and family conflict. An open and expressive family environment (b = −0.452, p = .008) is related to a decreased level of external conflict reported by college students, whereas a higher sense of family conflict leads to an increased sense of external conflict (b = 0.378, p = .008).

Discussion

This study focused on the impact of family cohesion, family expressiveness, and family conflict on dysfunctional career thoughts, specifically, decision-making confusion, commitment anxiety, and external conflict. It was hypothesized that lower levels of family cohesion and expressiveness and higher levels of family conflict would result in higher levels of dysfunctional career thoughts. First, the results found that higher levels of family conflict were associated with higher levels of decision-making confusion, commitment anxiety, and external conflict. Second, lower levels of family expressiveness were also associated with higher levels of decision-making confusion, commitment anxiety, and external conflict. Thus, the hypothesized relationship between family expressiveness and family conflict and dysfunctional career thoughts was supported while the relationship between family cohesion and dysfunctional career thoughts was not.

Prior to discussing the results, the limitations of the study are noted. Conclusions about the results are limited by the following considerations. First, the internal consistency estimate for the Expressiveness subscale of the Family Assessment Device was .56, lower than the reported internal consistency of .69 (Moos & Moos, 2009), raising questions about the subscale as a unidimensional construct in the current study. Second, this study utilized an ex post facto design. A limitation of ex post facto designs is the difficulty determining a causal link between variables. Third, since the study utilized a convenience sample, it is unclear if there would have been a difference between respondents and nonrespondents with respect to the study variables. Finally, participants were asked to respond to the family instrument by describing their family of origin. The average length of time since the participants had lived with their family of origin was 5 years with about half of the participants having lived with their family of origin 2 years before completion of the study. It is possible that the length of time since some participants had lived with their family of origin reduced the accuracy of their perceptions of family relationships.

The current study’s results are supported by the extant literature that found that higher levels of family conflict were associated with higher levels of dysfunctional career thoughts, conceptualized as decision-making confusion, commitment anxiety, and external conflict (Dodge, 2001; Smith, 2011). While Dodge (2001) and Smith (2011) did not find a relationship between family expressiveness and dysfunctional career thoughts, the current study found low levels of family expressiveness were associated with high levels of dysfunctional career thoughts.

It is unclear why the current study failed to find a relationship between family cohesion and dysfunctional career thoughts. While the concept of family conflict (the amount of openly expressed anger and conflict among family members) and family expressiveness (the extent to which family members are encouraged to express their feelings) focus on communication within the family, family cohesion measures the degree of commitment, help, and support provided by family members. One possible explanation is that although the nature of the communication within the family is important with respect to impacting the student’s career thoughts, the degree of commitment, help, and support are not.

The study provides support for two assertions. First, in the individual’s family of origin, high levels of family conflict were associated with individuals whose emotions or lack of decision-making skill knowledge interfered with their ability to make a career decision (decision-making confusion), who experienced anxiety concerning committing to a career decision (commitment anxiety), and who had difficulty incorporating the influence of others (e.g., family members) in their career decisions (external conflict). Individuals who have decision-making confusion and commitment anxiety are unwilling and unmotivated to think about career options, are unconfident about their ability to make and implement a career decision, and have difficulty taking responsibility for their career problem solving tasks (Sampson et al., 2004). Individuals with external conflict have difficulty making an effective career decision while considering the influence of others in the career decision-making process. Growing up in a family where conflict is common and family members openly express anger appears to increase the chances that an individual engages in negative career thoughts and disrupts the ability to engage in a rational career problem solving and decision-making process.

Second, in the individual’s family of origin, low levels of family expressiveness were associated with individuals whose emotions or lack of decision-making skill knowledge interfered with their ability to make a career decision (decision-making confusion), who experienced anxiety concerning committing to a career decision (commitment anxiety), and who had difficulty incorporating the influence of others (e.g., family members) in their career decisions (external conflict). Within the CIP approach, external conflict is related to the contextual factors that either increase or decrease the complexity of the career decision-making process. If the individual grew up in a family where openly expressing one’s feelings was not encouraged, then the current study provides support for the assertion that it would be difficult for the son or daughter to effectively negotiate instances where a parent is suggesting or insisting that they pursue a particular career path.

The practical implications of the results suggest two key focuses for the career counselor. A career counselor should consider discussing the nature of the student’s family relationships to determine whether family of origin relationships impacts the current career decision-making concerns. First, the career counselor should focus on whether the individual’s family of origin encouraged open expressions of feelings and whether family members openly expressed anger toward each other. For students who grew up in families where open conflict was prevalent and/or family members were not encouraged to express their feelings, counselors may consider discussing the potential relationship between these family dynamics and the client’s current problems related to career decision-making. Second, the career counselor should consider the effect of the student’s family relationships on the nature of the working alliance between counselor and client (Bordin, 1979, 1994). To the extent that the student grew up in a family where open expression of feelings was not encouraged, they may have difficulty expressing their feelings to their counselor about career decision-making problems. In order for the counselor to effectively address dysfunctional career thoughts, the student must be willing to openly discuss career and personal issues (Ecke, 2007).

The current study provides support for the relationship between family of origin dynamics and dysfunctional career thoughts. The results provide an important first step in understanding the relationship of family of origin relationships as one contextual influence on career decision-making. The study adds to the growing literature investigating career decision-making from a CIP perspective and provides preliminary support for counselors exploring family of origin dynamics as a relevant framework for understanding the client’s current problems-making career decisions.

Additional research is needed in the following areas. First, the current study focuses on college students who are in the process of negotiating the nature of their independence from their family of origin. A longitudinal study focusing on the transition from adolescence to young adulthood with regard to the process of an individual working through career decision-making tasks would be informative. A longitudinal study could assist in determining whether the relationship between family of origin dynamics and career thoughts holds up over time (e.g., during a midlife career change). Second, while the current study did not find socioeconomic factors significant in the relationship between family of origin relationships and dysfunctional career thoughts, other researchers have commented on the importance of income and education (Heppner & Scott, 2004; Whiston & Keller, 2004a). Research including a specific measure of socioeconomic levels would assist in measuring the impact of socioeconomic factors. Finally, since the extant literature focusing on the same measures and sample is limited (i.e., Dodge, 2001; Smith, 2011), the study should be replicated. Replication of the current study would assist in determining whether the results are consistent across studies.

Footnotes

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Alliman-Brissett

Turner

Skovolt

(2004). Parent support and African American adolescents’ career self-efficacy. Professional School Counseling, 7, 124–132.

Beck

A. T.

(1976). Cognitive therapy and emotional disorders. New York, NY: International Universities Press.

Beck

A. T.

Rush

Shaw

Emery

(1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Blustein

(2001). The interface of work and relationships: Critical knowledge for 21st century psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 179–192. doi:10.1177/001100000129001

Blustein

(2004). Moving from the inside out: Further explorations of the family of origin/career development linkage. The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 603–611. doi:10.1177/0011000004265962

Blustein

(2006). The psychology of working: A new perspective for career development and public policy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bordin

(1994). Theory and research on the therapeutic working alliance: New directions. In Horvath

Greenberg

(Eds.), The working alliance: Theory, research and practice (pp. 13–37). New York, NY: John Wiley.

Bordin

(1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 16, 252–260.

Brachter

(1982). The influence of the family on career selection: A family systems perspective. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 61, 87–91.

10.

Dodge

(2001). An investigation of the relationship between the family of origin and selected career development outcomes (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest (UMI No. 3003081).

11.

Duffy

Dik

(2009). Beyond the self: External influences in the career development process. Career Development Quarterly, 58, 29–43.

12.

Ecke

(2007). Attachment style and dysfunctional career thoughts: How attachment style can affect the career counseling process. Career Development Quarterly, 55, 339–350.

13.

Gottfredson

(1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory of occupational preferences. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 545–579.

14.

Guay

Senecal

Gauthier

Fernet

(2003). Predicting career indecision: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 165–177. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.50.2

15.

Guerra

Braungart-Rieker

(1999). Predicting career indecision in college students: The roles of identity formation and parental relationship factors. Career Development Quarterly, 47, 255–266.

16.

Hargrove

Creagh

Burgess

(2002). Family interaction patterns as predictors of vocational identity and career decision-making efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 185–201. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1848

17.

Hargove

Inman

Crane

(2005). Family interaction patterns, career planning attitudes, and vocational identity of high school adolescents. Journal of Career Development, 31, 263–278. doi:10.1007/s10871-005-4740-1

18.

Heppner

Scott

(2004). From whence we came: The role of social class in our families of origin. The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 596–602. doi:10.1177/001 1000004265670

19.

Johnson

Buboltz

Nichols

(1999). Parental divorce, family functioning, and vocational identity of college students. Journal of Career Development, 26, 137–146.

20.

Kenny

Medvide

(2013). Relational influences on career development. In Brown

Lent

(Eds.), Career development and counseling (pp. 329–356). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

21.

Kinnier

Brigman

Noble

(1990). Career indecision and family enmeshment. Journal of Counseling and Development, 68, 309–312.

22.

Lopez

Andrews

(1987). Career indecision: Family systems perspective. Journal of Counseling and Development, 65, 304–307.

23.

McGoldrick

Shibusawa

(2012). The family life cycle. In Walsh

(Eds.), Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity (4th ed., pp. 375–398). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

24.

Moos

(2009). Family environment scale manual and sampler set: Development, applications and research (4th ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.

25.

Nota

Ferrari

Solberg

Soresi

(2007). Career search self-efficacy, family support, and career indecision with Italian youth. Journal of Career Assessment, 15, 181–193. doi:110.1177/1069072706298019

26.

O’Brien

Friedman

Tipton

Linn

(2000). Attachment, separation, and women’s vocational development: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 301–315. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.47.3.301

27.

Penick

(1992). Family functioning and adolescent career development. Career Development Quarterly, 40, 208–223.

28.

Roe

(1956). Psychology of occupations. New York, NY: Wiley.

29.

Sampson

J. P.

Peterson

G. W.

Lenz

J. G.

Reardon

R. C.

Saunders

D. E.

(1996). Career thoughts inventory: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

30.

Sampson

J. P.

Reardon

R. C.

Peterson

G. W.

Lenz

J. G.

(2004). Career counseling and services: A cognitive information processing approach. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Thomson Learning.

31.

Schultheiss

(2003). A relational approach to career counseling: Theoretical integration and practical application. Journal of Counseling and Development, 81, 301–310.

32.

Schultheiss

(2006). The interface of work and family life. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 334–341. doi:10.1037/70735-7028.37.4.334

33.

Shin

Kelly

(2013). Cross-cultural comparison of the effects of optimism, intrinsic motivation, and family relations on vocational identity. Career Development Quarterly, 61, 141–160. doi:10.1002/j.261-0045.2013.00043.x

34.

Schulenberg

Vondracek

Crouter

(1984). The influence of the family on vocational development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 46, 129–142.

35.

Smith

(2011). Family and role model influences on Black young adults’ dysfunctional career thoughts (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest (UMI No. 3492435).

36.

Strauser

(Ed.). (2014). Career development, employment, and disability in rehabilitation. New York, NY: Springer.

37.

Super

(1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16, 282–298.

38.

Whiston

Keller

(2004a). Expanding research concerning family influences on career development: Cultivating a number of brown spots. The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 612–617. doi:10.1177/0011000004266009

39.

Whiston

Keller

(2004b). The influences of the family of origin on career development: A review and analysis. The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 493–568. doi:10.1177/0011000004265660

40.

Wolfe

Betz

(2004). The relationship of attachment variables to career decision-making self-efficacy and fear of commitment. Career Development Quarterly, 52, 363–369.