Social Cognitive Factors as Mediators Between Gender Role Personality and Career Exploration

Abstract

The present study identified the relationships between gender role personality and career exploration in female college students, as well as the mediating roles of career decision self-efficacy (CDSE) and self-regulation in the relationships. We used data from 210 Korean female college students. Structural equation modeling revealed the following: Female college students’ femininity was directly related with their career exploration, whereas their masculinity was not. Moreover, while female college students’ CDSE alone mediated the relationship between masculinity and career exploration, female college students’ CDSE and self-regulation mediated the relationship between femininity and career exploration. Specifically, in addition to mediating the relationship between femininity and career exploration directly, female college students’ self-regulation exerted a mediating effect on the relationship between femininity and career exploration through CDSE. Finally, we suggested that the effectiveness of career exploration programs for female students could be improved by considering gender role personality, CDSE, and self-regulation.

Keywords

female college students career exploration gender role personality career decision self-efficacy self-regulation

College students have development tasks that involve exploring career paths and preparing for future employment. Career exploration is a series of processes in which individuals perform various activities such as collecting information and participating in career education programs to choose careers that fit their interests, skills, and abilities. It is not easy for college students to engage in such activities that require extra time and effort.

Women are more influenced by gender norms in career development than men in Korea, which leads to women having a poorer position in the labor market, even though they are more educated than they were in the past (Kim & Kim, 2010; Lee, 2017). In Korea, the male participation rate in economic activity after graduating from college (88.4%) was higher than that of females (66.2%), although the female college entrance rate (73.5%) was higher than that of males (66.3%; Statistics Korea, 2017). In addition, the total rate of women’s economic activity in Korea was 58.4% in 2016, which ranks it 15th of 19 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries and places it in the lowest range (Bank of Korea, 2018).

Although there are several reasons for the low employment rate of women, Confucianism, a long-term-oriented national culture, has been regarded as a key underlying cause. Confucianism stresses the importance of traditional values to manage social order and prescribes gender roles—childrearing and housework are considered to be the responsibilities of women, whereas social successes are more important for men. Male domination in Confucianism still affects society as a whole and thus has a negative impact on women’s opportunities for employment and promotion (Lee, 2017). However, many female college students are successful in their career exploration and choices; in Korea, the proportion of women in male-dominated career areas has increased since 2000 (Oh & Chee, 2018). Therefore, to develop effective career guidance and counseling programs for female students, it is necessary to investigate the personal resources that enable such successes.

Modern society has blurred gender segregation in the labor market and expanded the number of jobs available to women, leading to increased interest in gender role personality in women’s career development (Gushue & Whitson, 2006; Kim & Kim, 2010). Gender role personality refers to a range of personality traits and behavioral styles considered desirable for each gender within a culture (Henderson, Stalnaker, & Taylor, 1988). According to Bem (1974), gender role identity is divided into masculine, feminine, and androgynous types according to the level of masculine and feminine personality traits. Summarizing the results of earlier studies conducted in various cultures, women give birth and nurture their children, leading to the perception that personality traits such as warmth, expressiveness, sensitivity, empathy, and yielding, which are related to caregiving and interpersonal relationships, are more appropriate for women. In contrast, aggressiveness, activeness, achievement orientation, independence, confidence, decision-making, and competitiveness are viewed as masculine traits necessary to enable mating and succeed in the workplace (Čerešnik, 2013; Chung, 1990; Wigfield, Eccles, & Pintrich, 1996).

Several studies have shown that women’s gender role personality influences their career exploration (e.g., Lee & Lee, 2009). The theoretical framework of these studies can be found in the social cognitive model of career self-management (Lent & Brown, 2013). Designed to complement the social cognitive career theory that emphasizes content aspects of career development, such as predicting the types of career fields that form the basis for people’s vocational interests and choice paths, the social cognitive model of career self-management focuses on process aspects of career behaviors—for instance, the mechanisms involved in exploring career options. According to the model, adaptive career behaviors such as career exploration are influenced by a variety of factors such as contextual, personality, and cognitive factors. The model also proposes that personality factors (e.g., conscientiousness) can affect career exploration both directly and indirectly through cognitive factors such as self-regulatory efficacy. Therefore, gender role personality is considered a personality factor, while career decision self-efficacy (CDSE) and self-regulation are cognitive factors.

Some research findings, such as Lee and Lee (2009), indicated that both masculinity and femininity exerted positive influences on career choice and preparation in female college students, while masculinity alone influenced career choice in male college students. Yoo and Lee (1997) reported that, regardless of college students’ gender, initiative, which is perceived as a masculine trait, was the strongest predictor of career preparation. In contrast, some studies have reported that agreeableness and conscientiousness, which are perceived as feminine traits, are major personality traits associated with career exploration (e.g., Li et al., 2015; Turban, Stevens, & Lee, 2009). Additionally, higher femininity in female college students was associated with higher levels of career decisions favoring feminine-oriented fields of work (Ha, 2014). This finding implies that the relationship between gender role personality and career exploration in female students should be identified together with vocational characteristics.

Several studies have reported that CDSE mediates the relationships between gender role personality and career exploration in female students. CDSE reflects confidence regarding task performance required for career decisions (Gushue & Whitson, 2006) and is related to gender role personality and career exploration. Kim and Kim (2010) found that androgynous female college students had higher levels of CDSE compared to masculine or feminine students. However, according to Choi (2004), masculine college students had higher overall efficacy and academic efficacy compared to feminine students. These results were supported by Wigfield, Eccles, and Pintrich (1996), who indicated that men tended to overtly show their abilities and exaggerate them, whereas women tended to be humble and realistic when evaluating their own abilities. Moreover, research has shown a positive relationship between CDSE and participation in career exploration in college students (e.g., Kim & Kim, 2014).

Self-regulation may be another mediator in the relationship between gender role personality and career exploration. Self-regulation includes autonomous goal setting, use of effective strategies for goal achievement, control of inappropriate emotions and behaviors for goal achievement, and achievement monitoring (Zimmerman, 2000). Many studies have shown that a learner’s gender influences levels of self-regulation. According to Čerešnik (2013), adolescents with high levels of femininity tend to control their emotions by conforming to social demands, while adolescents with high levels of masculinity tend to be more autonomous, indicating that androgynous adolescents have the highest levels of self-regulation. On the other hand, women exhibited higher levels of self-regulation components such as goal-setting, time management, monitoring, and behavior control than men (Weis, Heikamp, & Trommsdorff, 2013). Similarly, some studies (Turban et al., 2009; Vermetten, Lodewijks, & Vermunt, 2001) reported that feminine personality traits such as conscientiousness and agreeableness were related to self-regulation; in particular, conscientiousness was related to self-regulation factors such as goal-setting and perseverance, and agreeableness was also associated with self-regulation tendencies to control one’s own behavior in response to external demands. Turban, Stevens, and Lee (2009) showed that conscientiousness influenced career exploration through self-regulation. Furthermore, several studies reported that college students’ self-regulation, which is associated with autonomy and self-control toward goal attainment, both directly influences career exploration and affects confidence in accomplishing tasks related to career exploration, ultimately leading to participation in career exploration (Kim & Kim, 2014; Park & Lee, 2013).

Drawing on the social cognitive model of career self-management and the literature reviewed thus far, we have identified the relationships between gender role personality and career exploration in Korean female college students and recognized the mediating roles of CDSE and self-regulation to clarify how masculine and feminine characteristics are positively related with career exploration. Thus, such a close examination of the pathways between career exploration and specific types of gender role personality may contribute to further development of the social cognitive model of career self-management and provide additional practical information to be used in career counseling and education programs for female college students. Our study hypotheses were as follows: First, female college students’ gender role personality (masculinity and femininity) is positively associated with career exploration. Second, female college students’ CDSE and self-regulation mediate the positive relationships between gender role personality (masculinity and femininity) and career exploration.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants included 210 female students enrolled in four universities in Korean metropolitan cities and provinces (Gyeonggi-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Jeollabuk-do, and Jeollanam-do). Among participants, 115 (54.8%) and 95 (45.2%) were in their fourth and third year, respectively. Fifty-five (26.2%) were studying humanities, 63 (30.0%) social sciences, 60 (28.6%) engineering, and 32 (15.2%) art and music. Data were collected in 2017 and 2018 using self-report questionnaires. The study was approved by the Jeonju University Institutional Review Board and conducted in accordance with its rules and regulations (no. 171110-HR-2017-1102). Participants were recruited through announcements on student bulletin boards in university campus buildings. Informed consent was obtained from all participants before they voluntarily responded to the questionnaire.

Measures

Career exploration

The dependent variable, female college students’ career exploration, was measured with the Career Exploration Survey–Revised Scale (CES-R), developed by Stumpf, Colarelli, and Hartman (1983) and revised by Nasta (2007). We adapted the CES-R by applying the backward translation technique proposed by the International Test Commission (ITC, 2016) to establish construct equivalence. The CES-R comprises 28 items evaluating the cognitive and behavioral aspects of career exploration. It is divided across three subscales: Intended Systematic Exploration (5 items; e.g., “sought opportunities to demonstrate work skills”), Environment Exploration (14 items; e.g., “obtained information on specific jobs or companies”), and Self-Exploration (9 items; e.g., “reflected on how my past integrates with my future career”). A number of studies using Asian samples have reported acceptable reliability and validity of the CES; for instance, the internal consistency of the subscales was above .82 in Turkish college students (Kanten, Kanten, & Yeşiltaş, 2016), and there was a significant positive correlation between the career exploration and CDSE scales in Indian college students (Ramasamy & Nithyanandan, 2016).

Each item response is measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (a great deal). Score ranges are 5–25 for intended systematic exploration, 14–70 for environment exploration, and 9–45 for self-exploration. Higher scores indicate more active participation in systematic career exploration activities, more career-related information gathering, and a higher degree of exploring prior work experience, aptitude, and interest in one’s career. The overall internal consistency of the scale (Cronbach’s α) was .93. Cronbach’s α was .75 for the Intended Systematic Exploration subscale, .88 for the Environment Exploration subscale, and .86 for the Self-Exploration subscale.

Gender role personality

Chung’s Korean Sex Role Inventory (KSRI; Chung, 1990), developed based on Bem’s (1974) theory, was used to measure female college students’ gender role personality. The KSRI comprises three subscales: Masculinity, Femininity, and Social Desirability, each with 20 items. We utilized the Masculinity and Femininity subscales and excluded the Social Desirability subscale. Each of the gender role personality scales had high internal consistency at the time of its development, expressed in Cronbach’s α of .91 for the masculinity scale and .84 for the femininity scale (Chung, 1990). Furthermore, the criterion-related validity (e.g., Big Five Inventory measuring personality traits) has been thoroughly supported by other Korean researchers (e.g., Kim, Ha, Kim, Ha, & Kim, 2016). Masculinity and femininity subscales are independent scales composed of questions regarding the desirable personality traits for each gender in Korea. Specifically, the masculinity subscale comprises items that measure independence, competitiveness, ambitiousness, activeness, initiative, confidence, and decision-making capability, whereas the femininity subscale comprises items that evaluate agreeableness, warmth, expressiveness, interpersonal sensitivity, and meticulousness (Chung, 1990). Item responses are on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (a great deal); therefore, possible scores ranged from 20 to 140, with higher scores indicating higher levels of masculinity or femininity. The internal consistency of the Masculinity and Femininity subscales (Cronbach’s α) were .83 and .87, respectively.

CDSE

The Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale–Short Form (CDSES-SF) developed by Betz, Klein, and Taylor (1996) was adapted and used to measure female college students’ CDSE. Again, the ITC backward translation technique was applied. The CDSES-SF comprises five subscales: Accurate Self-Appraisal (e.g., “accurately assess your abilities”), Gathering Occupational Information (e.g., “find information in the library about occupations you are interested in”), Goal Selection (e.g., “select one major from a list of potential majors you are considering”), Making Plans for the Future (e.g., “make a plan of your goals for the next 5 years”), and Problem-Solving (e.g., “change majors if you did not like your first choice”), each with 5 items. A number of studies have shown acceptable reliability and validity for the CDSES-SF using Asian samples such as China and Korea. For instance, the reliability of the total scale and the subscales was .91 and between .70 and .78, respectively (Hampton, 2005), and CDSES-SF scores were positively correlated with scores on the Career Attitude Maturity Inventory (Lee & Lee, 2000). Each item uses a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (no confidence at all) to 5 (complete confidence) and possible scores range from 5 to 25, with higher scores indicating higher levels of efficacy for each scale. The overall internal consistency of the CDSES-SF (Cronbach’s α) was .94; Cronbach’s α was .78 for the Accurate Self-Appraisal subscale, .76 for the Gathering Occupational Information subscale, .80 for the Goal Selection subscale, .78 for the Making Plans for the Future subscale, and .70 for the Problem-Solving subscale.

Self-regulation

Brown, Miller, and Lawendowski’s Self-regulation Questionnaire (SRQ; 1999) was adapted and used to measure female college students’ self-regulation. The same ITC backward translation technique used to adapt the CES and CDSES was applied. The self-regulation scale measures the ability to plan one’s actions, implement those actions, and evaluate the results of the planned actions to achieve a certain goal. It comprises 63 questions encompassing seven steps: receiving relevant information (e.g., “I usually keep track of my progress toward my goals”), evaluating the information and comparing it to norms (e.g., “My behavior is not that different from other people’s”), triggering change (e.g., “I am willing to consider other ways of doing things”), searching for options (e.g., “I have sought out advice or information about changing”), formulating a plan (e.g., “Once I have a goal, I can usually plan how to reach it”), implementing the plan (e.g., “I can stick to a plan that’s working well”), and assessing the plan’s effectiveness (e.g., “I reward myself for progress toward my goals”), each with 9 items. A number of studies using Asian samples have reported acceptable reliability and validity for the SRQ. For instance, the internal reliability of SRQ was .91 and the SRQ predicted problematic behaviors such as alcohol use disorders in a study using an Indian sample (Pothiyil & Alex, 2013). Each item uses a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). At development, Brown, Miller, and Lawendowski (1999) advised that the combined score of all items be used; therefore, possible scores ranged from 63 to 315, with higher scores indicating higher levels of self-regulation. The internal consistency of the scale (Cronbach’s α) was .87.

Data Analyses

To determine general tendencies of the measured variables, the mean and standard deviation for each variable and the Pearson’s correlation coefficient between variables were computed. To examine the direct relationships between participants’ gender role personality and career exploration and the mediating roles of self-regulation and CDSE, structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted using AMOS 23.0 and IBM SPSS Statistics, Version 23.0. Maximum likelihood estimation was used. The missing value analysis showed a total of 15 missing values in the responses to the 156-item survey, which was an extremely low percentage (.046%) of the total number of responses across all participants (N = 210). A nonsignificant result of the missing completely at random (MCAR) test suggested by Little (1988), χ²(2,170) = 2,033.742, p = .982, indicated that data were missing completely at random. Thus, given the rate and pattern of missing values, the present study selected the expectation maximization algorithm recommended by many scholars (e.g., Woo, 2012) as appropriate for this case.

Before conducting the SEM analysis, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the research variables to verify their convergent and discriminant validities. As the first step, the items with factor loading below .50 (i.e., items that hinder validity) were eliminated (Woo, 2012), including 2 each for the femininity and masculinity scale, 5 for the career exploration scale (Intended Systematic Exploration subscale: 1, Environment Exploration subscale: 2, Self-Exploration subscale: 2), 5 for the CDSE scale (1 item per subscale), and 13 for the self-regulation scale (1–2 items per subscale). The masculinity, femininity, and self-regulation scales were originally developed as single observed values; therefore, each variable was made into a single observation index. We also tested convergent validity and discriminant validity in the CDSE and career exploration subscales. Specifically, convergent validity was verified through average variance extracted (AVE) and construct reliability (CR). Convergent validity is demonstrated when AVE is ≥.50 and CR is ≥.70. Discriminant validity is demonstrated when each AVE of the two latent variables with the highest correlation is larger than the squared value of the correlation coefficient between the two variables (Woo, 2012).

The convergent and discriminant validity tests showed that both were supported for career exploration; therefore, the three career exploration subscales were used as observation indices. However, the five CDSE subscales showed no discriminant validity, even though convergent validity was confirmed. Therefore, to solve the problem of discriminant validity, all CDSE items were aggregated and utilized as a single observation index in the SEM; such item parceling, combining items of a scale and using the combined scores as a single observation index, improves the fit of SEM (Woo, 2012).

After the confirmatory factor analysis, SEM was conducted to verify the direct and indirect relationships of key variables. The present study (N = 210) satisfied the sample size required for SEM (at least 150–400) suggested by several scholars (e.g., Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006; Woo, 2012). Furthermore, the sample size meets the other standard suggested by Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2006), in that the communality (mean-squared value of the standardized factor loading of all observed latent variable values) was higher than .6 and the required sample size for such a case was at least 100.

Model fitness was evaluated using the χ² index, goodness-of-fit index (GFI), comparative fit index (CFI), normed fit index (NFI), root mean square residual (RMR), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). χ² is the absolute fit index used to determine the model’s fit and p > .05 indicates a close fit (Woo, 2012). Moreover, GFI, CFI, NFI values over .9, RMR below .05, and RMSEA below .08 indicate a robust fit (Kline, 2011).

Furthermore, to investigate the overall significance levels of self-regulation and CDSE’s mediating effects on the relationships between gender role personality and career exploration, the bootstrapping procedure was applied using AMOS. However, the AMOS bootstrapping method cannot verify the statistical significance of each potential pathway between female college students’ gender role personality, self-regulation, CDSE, and career exploration if multiple pathways exist. To overcome this limitation, we applied the method suggested by Bae (2011) that incorporates the “phantom variable” indicating specific indirect paths. The phantom variable does not influence model fit or parameters and, as such, can be used for statistical verification of specific indirect effects (see also Macho & Ledermann, 2011).

Results

General Tendencies of Measured Variables

Table 1 displays descriptive statistics and correlations among variables. First, average scores of the items pertaining to masculinity and femininity were 5.07 (SD = .97) and 5.33 (SD = .92), respectively, out of a possible score of 7. Participants’ average CDSE and self-regulation were 3.54 (SD = .81) and 3.46 (SD = .59), respectively, out of a possible score of 5. The average scores on the career exploration subscales ranged from 3.20 (SD = .81) to 3.26 (SD = .72) out of a possible score of 5. To determine whether the variables satisfied the assumptions of multivariate normality in the SEM analysis, we examined skewness and kurtosis. The variables satisfied the threshold suggested by West, Finch, and Curran (1995; absolute skewness value <2 and absolute kurtosis value <7 indicate normality) as well as the threshold suggested by Kline (2011; absolute kurtosis value <10 indicates normality).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Masculinity
2. Femininity	−.05
3. CDSE	.50**	.23**
4. Self-regulation	.02	.36**	.47**
Career exploration
5. Intended systematic exploration	.07	.37**	.46**	.53**
6. Environment exploration	.08	.34**	.47**	.50**	.65**
7. Self-exploration	.08	.33**	.45**	.53**	.62**	.61**
M	5.07	5.33	3.54	3.46	3.20	3.23	3.26
SD	.97	.92	.81	.59	.81	.81	.72
Skewness	−.20	−0.77	−.04	−.26	−.24	−.22	−.30
Kurtosis	−.10	1.17	−.32	−.11	.22	.12	.54

Note. N = 210. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; CDSE = career decision self-efficacy.

**p < .01.

The correlational analysis performed prior to the SEM analysis showed that female college students’ femininity had significant positive correlations with CDSE, self-regulation, and all career exploration subscales, while masculinity was positively and significantly correlated with CDSE alone. Furthermore, participants’ CDSE was positively and significantly correlated with self-regulation and all career exploration subscales. Participants’ self-regulation was also positively and significantly correlated with all career exploration subscales (see Table 1).

Relationships Between Female College Students’ Gender Role Personality and Career Exploration: Mediating Roles of CDSE and Self-Regulation

To determine whether the sample data were appropriate for the hypothesized study model, we examined the model fit. The results showed a good fit, χ² = 1.699 (p = .989); GFI = .998; CFI = 1.000; NFI = .997; RMR = .004; RMSEA = .000. The results of the SEM analysis, which was performed to examine pathways among female college students’ gender role personality, CDSE, self-regulation, and career exploration, are presented in Figure 1. First, the fit of the structural equation model was outstanding, χ² = 2.298 (p = .986), GFI = .997, CFI = 1.000, NFI = .996, RMR = .013, and RMSEA = .000, and six of the nine paths were statistically significant at p < .01 and p < .001. Specifically, while participants’ femininity was significantly and positively related with career exploration, their masculinity was not. Moreover, participants’ masculinity was significantly and positively related with CDSE, whereas their femininity was not. In addition, participants’ femininity was significantly and positively related with self-regulation, whereas their masculinity was not. Both participants’ CDSE and self-regulation were significantly and positively related with career exploration. The relationship between participants’ self-regulation and CDSE was also significant.

Figure 1.

The structural equation modeling analysis. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

A bootstrapping method was used to verify the statistical significance of the mediating effects of self-regulation and CDSE on the relationships between participants’ masculinity and femininity and career exploration. The mediating effects of self-regulation and CDSE on the relationships between participants’ masculinity and career exploration (indirect effect: .24, p < .05) and participants’ femininity and career exploration (indirect effect: .29, p < .05) were both statistically significant. We applied phantom variables to examine the significance of all specific indirect effects; results are displayed in Table 2. The results show that the relationship between participants’ masculinity and career exploration was mediated by CDSE. Additionally, two mediating models of self-regulation and CDSE were statistically significant in the relationship between participants’ femininity and career exploration. Specifically, participants’ femininity and career exploration behaviors were not only mediated by self-regulation but were also mediated by self-regulation and CDSE sequentially.

Table 2.

Statistical Significance Tests of Specific Indirect Effects.

Indirect Effects	b	Two-Tailed Significance (Bias-Corrected)
Masculinity → CDSE → career exploration	.13	*
Masculinity → self-regulation → career exploration	.01	.661
Masculinity → self-regulation → CDSE → career exploration	.01	.429
Femininity → CDSE → career exploration	.02	.135
Femininity → self-regulation → career exploration	.11	**
Femininity → self-regulation → CDSE → career exploration	.05	**

Note. N = 210. CDSE = career decision self-efficacy.

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

Discussion

This study analyzed the relationships between gender role personality and career exploration, as well as the mediating roles of CDSE and self-regulation, in Korean female college students. We found that femininity had a direct positive relationship with career exploration, whereas masculinity did not. This result indicates that career exploration, which requires systematic and deliberate exploration of oneself and vocation and frequent communication with other people in the process, is more associated with feminine traits such as interpersonal orientation and meticulousness. This supports studies that identified the positive relationships of extroversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (perceived as feminine traits) to career exploration (Li et al., 2015). The result can also be explained by our participants’ major distribution and characteristics. Most people prefer work environments and academic areas (majors) that are compatible with their personality (Holland, 1985; Smart, Feldman, & Ethington, 2000). It is notable that a majority (71.4%) of the total participants in the present study had majors that concentrated on social science (e.g., education, psychology, and social welfare), humanities, and arts, which emphasize subjectivity, emotion, caring, and empathy and thus have been perceived as feminine fields (Beutel, Burge, & Borden, 2018). For students majoring in these areas, the higher their femininity level, the more likely they were to participate in exploring female-dominated careers related to those majors. Therefore, the finding that femininity had a stronger direct positive relationship with career exploration compared to masculinity may be explained by the concentration of feminine majors in the sample; this result is in line with Ha’s (2014) study, which reported that higher femininity in female students was associated with higher levels of career decision-making toward feminine-oriented areas.

Furthermore, the way in which female college students’ CDSE and self-regulation mediated the relationships between gender role personality and career exploration differed by gender role personality type. Although female college students’ masculinity did not directly relate to career exploration, the relationship of masculinity to female college students’ career exploration was mediated by CDSE. This finding supports Choi’s (2004) study, which reported that masculinity positively relates to CDSE, and is also consistent with a result indicating that higher levels of CDSE relate to higher levels of career exploration (Kim & Lee, 2013). In addition, this result partially supports the mediating role of CDSE in the relationship between gender role attitude and career goal setting suggested by Gushue and Whitson (2006), who studied Black and Latino female high school students. In sum, we showed that female college students’ masculine traits, such as activeness and confidence, influenced career exploration through CDSE, verifying the theoretical applicability of the social cognitive model of career self-management in Korean female college students.

Additionally, two mediated models showed pathways among femininity, self-regulation, CDSE, and career exploration in female college students. First, self-regulation directly mediated the relationship between femininity and career exploration. Furthermore, femininity sequentially influenced self-regulation and CDSE to finally exert a positive effect on career exploration. Our results are consistent with Vantieghem, Vermeersch, and Van Houtte’s (2014) study that reported high associations between femininity and self-regulation in adolescents. Moreover, the finding of relationships of self-regulation and CDSE to career exploration in female college students supported previous research showing that self-regulation in college students both directly influences career exploration and indirectly influences career exploration through CDSE (Kim & Kim, 2014; Park & Lee, 2013). Given that Turban et al. (2009) and Vermetten, Lodewijks, and Vermunt (2001) indicated that personality traits such as conscientiousness and agreeableness were related to self-regulation, factors such as meticulous and agreeable, which were included in our study’s femininity scale, played a key role in the relationship of femininity to self-regulation. We also showed that self-regulation had both a direct relationship with career exploration, which requires self-regulated components such as goal setting, action execution, self-control, and monitoring in performing associated activities, and an indirect relationship with career exploration through the efficacy of performing tasks associated with career decision-making.

Incorporating and summarizing our findings, the ways in which female college students’ masculinity and femininity influenced career exploration differed; specifically, the relationship of femininity to career exploration was stronger than the relationship of masculinity to career exploration. CDSE alone had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between masculinity and career exploration, while self-regulation and CDSE exerted partial mediating effects on the relationship between femininity and career exploration. Therefore, the current study is meaningful in that it highlighted the positive role of femininity, whereas many previous studies reported that masculinity or androgyny had positive influences on career exploration (e.g., Kim & Kim, 2010; Yoo & Lee, 1997). Our results also contribute to further development of the social cognitive model of career self-management by demonstrating the mediating roles of CDSE and self-regulation on the relationships between gender role personality and career exploration.

This study had some limitations. We analyzed data from 210 participants sampled from universities located in four regions in Korea; there are limitations to generalizing the results. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct further research on large-scale female college student samples with various majors across the nation. Second, individuals’ career exploration is also influenced by environmental factors; therefore, future studies should also consider environmental variables (e.g., family support). Third, although the criterion-related validity of the CDSES has been consistently supported (e.g., Lee & Lee, 2000), the construct validity of CDSES with five factors was not affirmed in the present study and some previous studies (e.g., Hampton, 2005). Consequently, further research is needed to verify construct validity in the CDSES across various cultures. Fourth, although this study identified the pathways of feminine and masculine personality to career exploration, it is difficult to identify which specific feminine and masculine personality traits influence career exploration. Thus, it is necessary to identify personality traits affecting career exploration by gender role personality type.

Finally, our findings have practical implications for career counseling programs that address female college students who are uncommitted to career exploration. Assessing personality traits along with CDSE and self-regulation may enable counselors to develop effective intervention for these students. For example, if a student shows a low level of CDSE, the counselor can work with the student to increase her self-efficacy level by providing rich and profound knowledge to identify vocational areas of interest and encouraging participation in experiential career exploration activities. Additionally, if a student is low in agreeableness and conscientiousness, major feminine personality traits related to career exploration and self-regulation, the counselor could encourage the student to participate in a series of career exploration activities consisting of goal setting, information gathering, monitoring, and evaluating with a self-directed and sociable peer mentor who acts as a guide, supporter, or role model. The counselor could also administer small group-based career exploration programs for female college students who are interested in similar career fields, in which gender role personality is considered in forming a group (Kim & Kim, 2010; Lee & Lee, 2009); for instance, by creating a small group of masculine female students and feminine female students and allowing them to participate in career exploration activities, such as information gathering, mock interviews, and internships together, counselors can provide students with opportunities to draw on and learn each other’s personality strengths (e.g., confidence, agreeableness) that facilitate career exploration.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Yangmi Lim and Okin Lee do not have any plans to be out of town for an extended period of time. All performed procedures were approved by the Jeonju University Institutional Review Board, and the study was conducted in accordance with its rules and regulations (no. 171110-HR-2017-1102) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

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.

ORCID iDs

Yangmi Lim

Okin Lee

References

Bae

B. R.

(2011). Structural equation modeling with Amos 19: Principles and practice. Seoul, South Korea: Chungnam.

Bank of Korea. (2018). Background and implications of increasing participation in women’s economic activity in OECD countries. Retrieved from https://www.bok.or.kr/portal/bbs/P0000528/view.do?nttId=236370&menuNo=200434

Bem

S. L.

(1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. doi:10.1037/h0036215

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

Beutel

A. M.

Burge

S. W.

Borden

B. A.

(2018). Femininity and choice of college major. Gender Issues, 35, 113–136. doi:10.1007/s12147-017-9195-8

Brown

J. M.

Miller

W. R.

Lawendowski

L. A.

(1999). The self-regulation questionnaire. In VandeCreek

Jackson

T. L.

(Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A sourcebook (Vol. 17, pp. 281–292). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press/Professional Resource Exchange.

Čerešnik

(2013). Self-regulation of adolescents. Gender specifications. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 2365–2374. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.271

Choi

(2004). Sex role group differences in specific, academic, and general self-efficacy. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary & Applied, 138, 149–159. doi:10.3200/JRLP.138.2.149-159

Chung

J. K.

(1990). Korean Sex Role Inventory (KSRI). The Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 5, 82–92.

10.

Gushue

G. V.

Whitson

M. L.

(2006). The relationship of ethnic identity and gender role attitudes to the development of career choice goals among Black and Latina girls. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 379–385. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.53.3.379

11.

M. S.

(2014). Feminine gender roles, feminine gender role conflicts, parental career support, decision-making-dependency and career decision in Korean female high school students. The Journal of Vocational Education Research, 33, 59–84.

12.

Hair

J. F.

Jr Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

(2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

13.

Hampton

N. Z.

(2005). Testing for the structure of the career decision self-efficacy sale-short form among Chinese college students. Journal of Career Assessment, 13, 98–113. doi:10.1177/1069072704270298

14.

Henderson

K. A.

Stalnaker

Taylor

(1988). The relationship between barriers to recreation and gender-role personality traits for women. Journal of Leisure Research, 20, 69–80. doi:10.1080/00222216.1988.11969758

15.

Holland

J. L.

(1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

16.

International Test Commission. (2016). The ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.psyssa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ITC-Guidelines-Translating-and-Adapting-Tests-v2-3.pdf

17.

Kanten

Yeşiltaş

(2016). The role of career self-efficacy on the effect of parental career behaviors on career exploration: A study on school of tourism and hotel management’ students. European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 3, 145–156.

18.

Kim

E. H.

Kim

B. W.

(2010). A study on the career search self-efficacy and career preparation behavior by gender role identity. The Journal of Vocational Education Research, 29, 165–183.

19.

Kim

J. H.

M. S.

Kim

B. H.

J. H.

Kim

H. J.

(2016). Validation of short form of Korean Sex Role Inventory (KSRI-SF). Korean Journal of Counseling, 17, 125–147.

20.

Kim

M. J.

Kim

B. W.

(2014). The relationship among university students’ career self-regulation, career decision making self-efficacy, rational career decision making, and career exploration behavior. The Journal of Career Education Research, 27, 27–45.

21.

Kim

S. S.

Lee

J. J.

(2013). The effect of career barriers and career decision-making self-efficacy on the career preparation behavior: For middle school and high school and specialized high school students. Journal of Rehabilitation Psychology, 20, 119–136.

22.

Kline

R. B.

(2011). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.

23.

Lee

K. H.

Lee

H. J.

(2000). The effects of career self-efficacy in predicting the level of career attitude maturity of college students. The Korean Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy, 12, 127–136.

24.

Lee

S. H.

Lee

E. J.

(2009). The influences of gender identity and gender role attitude on career decision-making self-efficacy and career maturity. The Korea Journal of Counseling, 10, 2137–2151.

25.

Lee

(2017). Women workforce in the Korean context. International Review of Management and Marketing, 7, 403–412.

26.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

(2013). Social cognitive model of career self-management: Toward a unifying view of adaptive career behavior across the life span. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 557–568. doi:10.1037/a0033446

27.

Guan

Wang

Zhou

Guo

Jiang

… Fang

(2015). Big-five personality and BIS/BAS traits as predictors of career exploration: The mediation role of career adaptability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 89, 39–45. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2015.04.006

28.

Little

R. J. A.

(1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198–1202. doi:10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722

29.

Macho

Ledermann

(2011). Estimating, testing, and comparing specific effects in structural equation models: The phantom model approach. Psychological Methods, 16, 34–43. doi:10.1037/a0021763

30.

Nasta

K. A.

(2007). Influence of career self-efficacy beliefs on career exploration behaviors (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from https://dspace.sunyconnect.suny.edu/bitstream/handle/1951/42318/KristenNastaMastersThesis.pdf

31.

Chee

Y. K.

(2018). Effects of family socioeconomic status, parenting attitudes on adolescent achievement motivation and self-efficacy: Comparisons between alpha girls and non-alpha girls. Journal of Parent Education, 10, 159–182.

32.

Park

S. Y.

Lee

S. J.

(2013). Effect of career decision-making autonomy and career decision relatedness on career preparation behaviors mediated by career decision-making self-efficacy of female college students. The Korean Journal of Educational Psychology, 27, 611–628.

33.

Pothiyil

D. I.

Alex

(2013). Self-regulation and set-shifting in alcohol dependence syndrome. Indian Journal of Applied Research, 3, 347–350.

34.

Ramasamy

Nithyanandan

D. V.

(2016). Positive psychological factors of career development among undergraduate students. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 3, 155–164.

35.

Smart

J. C.

Feldman

K. A.

Ethington

C. A.

(2000). Academic disciplines: Holland’s theory and the study of college students and faculty. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

36.

Statistics Korea. (2017). The rate of economic activity according to gender and education level. Retrieved from http://kostat.go.kr/wnsearch/search.jsp

37.

Stumpf

S. A.

Colarelli

S. M.

Hartman

(1983). Development of the career exploration survey (CES). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 191–226. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(83)90028-3

38.

Turban

D. B.

Stevens

C. K.

Lee

F. K.

(2009). Effects of conscientiousness and extraversion on new labor market entrants’ job search: The mediating role of metacognitive activities and positive emotions. Personality Psychology, 62, 553–573. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01148.x

39.

Vantieghem

Vermeersch

Van Houtte

(2014). Transcending the gender dichotomy in educational gender gap research: The association between gender identity and academic self-efficacy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39, 369–378. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.10.001

40.

Vermetten

Y. J.

Lodewijks

H. G.

Vermunt

J. D.

(2001). The role of personality traits and goal orientations in strategy use. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 149–170. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1042

41.

Weis

Heikamp

Trommsdorff

(2013). Gender differences in school achievement: The role of self-regulation. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 442. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00442

42.

West

S. G.

Finch

J. F.

Curran

P. J.

(1995). Structural equation models with non-normal variables: Problems and remedies. In Hoyle

R. H.

(Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

43.

Wigfield

Eccles

J. S.

Pintrich

P. R.

(1996). Development between the ages of 11 and 25. In Berliner

D. C.

Calfee

R. C.

(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 145–185). New York: Macmillan.

44.

Woo

J. P.

(2012). Concepts and knowledge of structural equation modeling. Seoul, South Korea: Hanarae Academy.

45.

Yoo

K. S.

Lee

J. C.

(1997). A study on the effect of fear of success, achievement motivation, and sex-role identity on career decision making. The Korean Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy, 9, 259–288.

46.

Zimmerman

B. J.

(2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In Boekaerts

Pintrich

P. R.

Zeidner

(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.