Strategies for Coping with Career Indecision

Abstract

The goal of the present research was to test the convergent and divergent validity of the Strategies for Coping with Career Indecision (SCCI) model and questionnaire, which comprises three main coping styles—Productive coping, Support-seeking, and Nonproductive coping—using three samples of young adults deliberating about their career choice. Study 1 tested the association between the SCCI and career decision-making profiles, using a sample of 390 young adults. Study 2 tested the relations between the SCCI and emotional and personality-related career decision-making difficulties, using a sample of 454 young adults. Finally, Study 3 tested the associations between the SCCI and career decision self-efficacy as well as the five dimensions of the Big Five Inventory, using a sample of 451 young adults. All three studies also tested the SCCI’s incremental validity by assessing its ability to predict individuals’ stages in the career decision-making process over and above the other measures. The results supported the convergent and divergent validity and partially supported the incremental validity of the SCCI. The theoretical and counseling implications are discussed and suggestions for future research are presented.

Keywords

career assessment career indecision career coping strategies career decision-making profiles emotional and personality-related career decision-making difficulties career decision self-efficacy the Big Five personality inventory

Making educational and career decisions is often a complex and demanding task. This decision has become even more challenging in the 21st-century world of work, which offers a broad range of career opportunities, a rapidly changing and unpredictable job market, career uncertainty, and economic instability (Nota & Rossier, 2015). These drastic changes require the individual to become more resourceful and to exercise career adaptive self-management behaviors (Lent & Brown, 2013; Savickas, 2013). Moreover, making a career choice is a particularly challenging process for young adults who often lack the knowledge or experience required for informed career decisions (Amir & Gati, 2006).

While there are young adults who make career decisions without any apparent problems, many others experience difficulties prior to or during the decision-making process (Amir & Gati, 2006; Kelly & Lee, 2002). Career indecision is used to denote problems arising during the career decision-making process (Germeijs & DeBoeck, 2003). Studies have focused on identifying the causes of career indecision and assessing the difficulties that people may experience in their attempts to choose a career (Brown & Rector, 2008; Gati, Krausz, & Osipow, 1996; Kelly & Lee, 2002; Saka, Gati, & Kelly, 2008). Generally, there is a distinction between career indecision and chronic indecisiveness. The former refers to a normative stage in decision making, whereas the latter is defined as a pervasive inability to make decisions about one’s career, primarily stemming from personality and emotional factors (Osipow, 1999; Saka & Gati, 2007; Saka et al., 2008). Locating the causes of career indecision is an important step in career guidance, as it allows more specific diagnostics and related counseling (Gati et al., 1996; Germeijs & DeBoeck, 2003).

Career indecision is considered a stressful situation because it involves dilemmas and conflicts that can be triggered by interpersonal, intrapersonal, and environmental factors (Argyropoulou, Sidiropoulou-Dimakakou, & Besevegis, 2007). When faced with situations perceived to be stressful, individuals typically mobilize different coping strategies (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Coping has been defined as the behavioral and cognitive efforts of an individual to manage the internal and external demands encountered during a specific stressful situation (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Young adults who encounter difficulties in making a career decision try to cope with these difficulties in one way or another. Some of them tend to feel anxious and may use avoidance behaviors (Argyropoulou et al., 2007; O’Hare & Tamburri, 1986), whereas others tend to use problem-focused coping strategies, such as planning, taking direct action, or seeking help. Coping has critical importance to psychological adjustment and well-being (Skinner, Edge, Altman, & Sherwood, 2003). Therefore, an important aspect of career counseling is not only to locate the focuses and causes of counselees’ indecision (Brown & Rector, 2008; Gati et al., 1996; Kelly & Lee, 2002; Saka & Gati, 2007) but also to assess their actual repertoire of coping strategies and help them cope better with their difficulties.

The importance of coping is well recognized in the career development literature (Argyropoulou et al., 2007; Larson & Majors, 1998; Larson, Toulouse, Ngumba, Fitzpatrick, & Heppner, 1994; Lee, 2005; Weinstein, Healy, & Ender, 2002). However, previous studies have not clearly presented a comprehensive theory for the construct of coping with career indecision. According to a contextual-specific approach to coping, the use of coping strategies depends on the type of stressor, and individuals often adapt their coping strategies to the demands of each particular problem (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Therefore, it is important to develop a domain-specific theory that focuses on strategies of coping with career indecision and a corresponding measure. Indeed, Larson and her colleagues (Larson et al., 1994; Larson & Majors, 1998) developed the Coping with Career Indecision Scale, which consists of four subscales (career distress and obstacles, problem solving, self-efficacy, and career myths). However, this scale was developed to distinguish among subtypes of students undecided about their future career and was not guided by, or embedded in, a comprehensive theoretical model of coping strategies.

Recently, to advance our understanding of how individuals cope with career indecision, Lipshits-Braziler, Gati, and Tatar (2015a) proposed a theoretically based model of Strategies for Coping with Career Indecision (SCCI). The major concepts of the model were derived from previous theories about coping with stress (e.g., Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993; Skinner et al., 2003). This new model, which was adapted to the context of career decision making, consists of 14 strategies that represent three major coping styles: Productive coping, Support-seeking, and Nonproductive coping. The first style, Productive coping, includes six strategies that facilitate coping with career indecision: instrumental information-seeking, emotional information-seeking, problem-solving, flexibility, accommodation, and self-regulation. The second style, Support-seeking, includes three strategies of involving others in coping with one’s career indecision: instrumental help-seeking, emotional help-seeking, and delegation. Finally, the third style, Nonproductive coping, includes five strategies that hinder coping with career indecision: escape, helplessness, isolation, submission, and opposition. The definitions of the 14 specific coping strategies are presented in Lipshits-Braziler et al. (2015a).

This model served as a basis for constructing an assessment—the SCCI questionnaire. The model and the questionnaire were empirically supported in a cross-cultural study with Israeli and American samples of young adults (Lipshits-Braziler et al., 2015a). Furthermore, the validity of the SCCI in predicting career decision-making difficulties and career decision status was supported (Lipshits-Braziler, Gati, & Tatar, 2015b). Nevertheless, there is a need for further research on the convergent, divergent, and incremental validity of instrument. Therefore, the goal of the present research was to investigate the construct validity of the SCCI among young adults deliberating about their career choice.

There is a wide range of potential variables for investigating the construct validity of the three major coping styles (Productive coping, Support-seeking, and Nonproductive coping). However, as discussed earlier, coping should be conceptualized and measured within a specific context, such as career indecision. We therefore focused on career decision-making variables that are conceptually related to the construct of coping with career indecision. Osipow (1999) suggested that career decision-making styles and self-efficacy are both cognitive variables that are significant in considering career indecision. In addition, he proposed distinguishing between career indecision and indecisiveness. Following these suggestions, we tested the convergent and divergent validity of the SCCI through its associations with the following characteristics of individuals that may associated with their coping strategies: (a) career decision-making style or profile (CDMP, Gati, Landman, Davidovitch, Asulin-Peretz, & Gadassi, 2010), (b) emotional and personality-related career decision-making difficulties that underlie career indecisiveness (EPCD, Saka & Gati, 2007; Saka et al., 2008), and (c) career decision self-efficacy (CDSE, Betz, Klein, & Taylor, 1996; Taylor & Betz, 1983). In addition, we tested the associations between coping with career indecision and stable personality traits, using the big five personality dimensions (Big Five Inventory [BFI], John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991), which had previously been found to be empirically associated with coping styles (see Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007, for a meta-analysis).

Second, we investigated the incremental validity of the SCCI by testing its ability to predict individuals’ career decision status (as measured by the RCA, which assesses how far individuals have narrowed down the range of occupational alternatives under consideration; Gati, Kleiman, Saka, & Zakai, 2003; Saka et al., 2008), over and above that predicted by the CDMP, EPCD, CDSE, and the BFI.

The present research extends the career development literature by providing new insights into the relationship between coping with career indecision and various career decision-making constructs as well as the incremental predictive effect that coping strategies have on career decidedness. Providing evidence of the construct validity of the SCCI will make it possible to assess potential uses of this new measure in career counseling research and practice.

Study 1: The Associations Between Strategies for Coping with Career Indecision and Career Decision-Making Profiles

To investigate the convergent and divergent validity of the SCCI questionnaire, we tested its association with career decision-making styles or profiles (CDMP), which are the way individuals approach career decision making (e.g., the way they collect, perceive, and process information). While the CDMP describes how individuals tend to make their career decisions (Gati et al., 2010), the SCCI assesses how they cope with the difficulty involved in making career decisions (i.e., “normative” career indecision). One of the distinctions between these two constructs is that, unlike career decision-making profiles, which are generally stable (Gati & Levin, 2012), coping has been defined as a constantly changing cognitive and behavioral process of dealing with situations or problems perceived as stressful (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Although these two constructs are conceptually distinct, they may be associated empirically. Therefore, in the present study we investigated the associations between these constructs.

The CDMP model has 12 dimensions, derived from earlier conceptualizations of career decision-making styles (e.g., Harren, 1979; Scott & Bruce, 1995). Each of the 12 dimensions of the CDMP represents a continuum on a bipolar scale: information gathering (comprehensive vs. minimal), information processing (analytic vs. holistic), locus of control (internal vs. external), effort invested (much vs. little), procrastination (high vs. low), speed of making the final decision (fast vs. slow), consulting with others (frequent vs. rare), dependence on others (high vs. low), desire to please others (high vs. low), aspiration for an ideal occupation (high vs. low), willingness to compromise (high vs. low), and use of intuition (much vs. little).

Previous research (Gadassi, Gati, & Dayan, 2012; Gadassi, Gati, & Wagman-Rolnick, 2013) has found that for the following 6 of the 12 CDMP dimensions, one of the poles is more adaptive for career decision making (i.e., better facilitates the career decision-making process) than the other: comprehensive information gathering, a more internal locus of control, less procrastination, greater speed of making the final decision, less dependence on others, and less desire to please others. Specifically, these six dimensions were associated with (a) greater decidedness (Gadassi et al., 2012, 2013), (b) higher levels of career decision self-efficacy (Gadassi et al., 2013), (c) lower levels of career indecisiveness (Gadassi et al., 2012), and (d) lower levels of career decision-making difficulties (Willner, Gati, & Guan, 2015). On the basis of these six dimensions, Gati and Levin (2012) defined a measure of Career Decision-making Adaptability (CDA). A higher CDA score represents a more adaptive career decision-making profile and hence greater ability to make a decision.

In the present study, we hypothesized that significant positive correlations would be found between Productive coping of the SCCI (including information seeking, problem solving, self-regulation, etc.) and several theoretically related dimensions of the CDMP—specifically, comprehensive information gathering, analytic information processing, much effort invested, and an internal locus of control. In addition, we hypothesized that significant correlations would be found between Support-seeking and the three dimensions of the CDMP which involve others in making decisions—specifically, consulting with others, dependence on others, and desire to please others. Finally, we expected significant positive correlations between the Nonproductive coping of the SCCI and the less adaptive dimensions of the CDMP: high procrastination, slow speed of making the final decision, a more external locus of control, and minimal information gathering.

Based on the literature reviewed, we also hypothesized that greater career decision-making adaptability would be positively associated with Productive coping and negatively associated with Nonproductive coping. We had no specific hypothesis regarding Support-seeking strategies. Finally, to assess the incremental validity of the SCCI, we tested its ability to predict individuals’ career decision status over and above predictions based on the CDA.

Method

Participants

The participants were 390 young adults (aged 18–30) who filled out the questionnaires during their visit to the Future Directions website (www.kivunim.com)—a free, anonymous, public website in Israel aimed at facilitating career decision making. The participants filled out the questionnaires on their own initiative in return for feedback about various aspects of their career decision making. The data of 47 individuals were excluded from the analyses because (a) they reported that they already knew what major they would choose (n = 3; see details in Instruments section), (b) their responses to the validity items of the SCCI or CDMP were questionable, indicating that they filled out these questionnaires with less than proper attention (n = 27), (c) they reported that they had no difficulties in making a decision (i.e., indicated 1 or 2 on the 9-point Likert-type scale [see details in Instruments section]; n = 2), or (d) they reported a low level of stress (i.e., marked 1 or 2 on the 9-point Likert-type scale [see details in Instruments section]; n = 15). Of the 390 participants whose data were included in the analyses, 238 (61%) were women and 152 (39%) were men. The participants’ mean age was 23.3 (SD = 3.27), and their mean years of education was 12.40 (SD = 1.14).

Instruments

Perceived Decisional Difficulty and Distress

To verify that the analyses are based on the responses of individuals who indeed had difficulties in making a career decision and felt stressed by it, we presented the participants with two questions. First they were asked to report their degree of difficulty in making a career decision (“How difficult is it for you to make a career decision?”) on a 9-point Likert-type scale (1 = not difficult at all, 9 = very difficult). Second, they were asked to report their level of decisional distress (“How stressful do you find the need to choose a major or a career?”; 1 = not stressful at all, 9 = very stressful). Those who replied “1” or “2” to one or both of these questions were excluded from the analyses. Our final sample thus included only young adults who felt that they were coping with a stressful situation.

The SCCI

The SCCI (Lipshits-Braziler et al., 2015a) assesses individuals’ strategies for coping with career indecision and includes 45 items (listed in Lipshits-Braziler et al., 2015a): one warm-up item, 2 validity items, and 42 items representing the 14 subscales. Participants were asked to rate how well each item describes them on a 9-point Likert-type scale (1 = does not describe me at all, 9 = describes me very well). Lipshits-Braziler et al. (2015a) reported a median Cronbach α (Cα) internal-consistency reliability estimate of .84 for the 14 coping subscales (range .70–.90) and Cα of .86, .92, and .88 for the three major scales (Productive coping, Support-seeking, and Nonproductive coping, respectively) for the Hebrew version of the SCCI. The median Cα internal-consistency reliability estimate of the 14 subscales in the present sample was .82 (range .68–.91). The reliabilities of the three major scales were adequate: .85, .91, and .86 for Productive coping, Support-seeking, and Nonproductive coping, respectively. Moderate to low correlations were found among these scales: r = .16 between Productive coping and Support-seeking, r = .38 between Support-seeking and Nonproductive coping, and r = −.14 between Productive and Nonproductive coping. The low magnitude of the associations between the three major scales indicates that they tap into different aspects of coping. Using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), Lipshits-Braziler et al. (2015a) reported that the SCCI structure was supported for both Israeli (χ²/df [2650.16/799] = 3.32, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .053, comparative fit index [CFI] = .90, and standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = .09) and American (χ² /df [1736.09/799] = 2.17, RMSEA = .055, CFI = .91, and SRMR = .10) samples. In the present sample, the goodness-of-fit statistics were similar (χ²/df [1774.3 /799] = 2.22, RMSEA = .056, CFI = .89, and SRMR = .10).

The CDMP

The CDMP (Gati et al., 2010; Gati & Levin, 2012) assesses individuals' career decision-making profiles and includes 39 items representing the 12 dimensions of the CDMP (3 statements for each dimension, a warm-up item, and 2 validity items). The participants were asked to rate how much they agree with each statement on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = don’t agree at all, 7 = highly agree). The internal-consistency, test–retest reliabilities, 1-year stability, concurrent validity, and incremental validity of the CDMP were supported (Gadassi et al., 2013; Gati & Levin, 2012; Gati, Gadassi, & Mashiah-Cohen, 2012). Based on Israeli and U. S. samples of young adults, Gati et al. (2012) reported a median Cα internal-consistency reliability of .81 and .82 for the 12 dimensions (range .77 to .92 and .75 to .88). The median Cα internal-consistency reliability estimate of the twelve dimensions in the present sample was .80 (range .72 to .90).

The CDA

The career decision-making adaptability score (Gati & Levin, 2012) derived from the CDMP was computed as the mean of the following six dimensions (after reversing the scores of the last three): information gathering, locus of control, speed of making the final decision, procrastination, dependence on others, and desire to please others. The concurrent validity of the CDA was supported by its pattern of correlations with the career decision self-efficacy (Gadassi et al., 2013), the career decision-making difficulties (Willner et al., 2015), and the emotional and personality-related career decision-making difficulties (Gadassi et al., 2012). Vertsberger and Gati (2015) reported that the Cronbach α internal-consistency reliability of the CDA was .87. In the present study, the internal consistency reliability of the CDA was .85.

Range of Considered Alternatives (RCA)

The RCA is a self-report measure aimed at assessing how far individuals have narrowed down the range of occupational alternatives under consideration, reflecting their career decision status (Gati et al., 2003; Saka et al., 2008). The participants were required to choose the one statement that best described their 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 (majors)”; (4) “I am considering a specific occupation (major), but would like to explore other options before I make my decision”; (5) “I know which occupation (major) I am interested in, but I would like to feel sure of my choice”; and (6) “I am already sure of the occupation (major) I will choose”. The RCA has been found useful in measuring advancement toward making a career decision (Saka et al., 2008) and assessing the effects of career intervention (Gati et al., 2003). The participants who marked option 6, indicating that they were decided and not deliberating, were excluded from the analyses.

Procedure

The participants who chose to fill out the SCCI, one of the self-report questionnaires on the Future Direction website, were then directed to fill out the CDMP as well. Using this order allowed us to first discover the participants’ coping strategies and only then elicit their career decision-making profiles so that introspection on how they make decisions would not affect their report regarding the strategies they use to cope with career indecision. After completing both questionnaires, the participants responded to the RCA question and reported general demographic information. The total time needed to fill out the questionnaires ranged from 15 to 20 min. Finally, the participants received personalized feedback about their coping strategies and their career decision-making profile, based on their responses to the SCCI and CDMP.

Results

The Convergent and Divergent Validity of the SCCI

To test the convergent and divergent validity of the SCCI, we computed the Pearson correlations between the SCCI and the CDMP. These correlations, as well as the means (and SDs) of the three SCCI scale scores and those of the 12 CDMP dimension scores, are presented in Table 1. Due to the large N (= 390), which results in statistical significance even for negligible correlations, we regard only associations with a correlation of r ≥ |.20| as worth attention, while correlations of r ≥ |.30|, reflecting a substantial association, are presented in bold.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of the SCCI Scales With the CDMP Dimensions and the CDA.

	Mean	SD	Productive Coping	Support-Seeking	Nonproductive Coping
IG much	4.38	1.48	.36*	−.13*	−.30*
IP analytic	4.24	1.39	.51*	.07	−.10
LC internal	4.99	1.57	.02	−.13*	−.25*
EI much	4.79	1.34	.41*	.20*	−.09
Pr high	4.16	1.81	−.29*	.18*	.55*
Sp fast	3.01	1.48	.07	−.35*	−.41*
Co frequent	5.08	1.44	.08	.49*	−.11
DO high	3.25	1.64	−.21*	.48*	.41*
DP high	2.94	1.53	−.11	.34*	.39*
AI high	5.27	1.28	.12	−.01	.07
WC high	3.93	1.49	.15*	.13*	.15*
UI much	4.32	1.40	.02	.00	.14*
CDA	4.34	0.97	.29*	−.44*	−.64*
Mean (SD)			5.77 (1.14)	5.26 (1.84)	4.92 (1.42)

Note. N = 390. Correlations above |.30| are in bold. SCCI = Strategies for Coping with Career Indecision; CDMP = Career Decision-Making Profiles; CDA = Career Decision-making Adaptability; IG = information gathering; IP = information processing; LC = locus of control; EI = effort invested; Pr = procrastination; Sp = speed of making the final decision; Co = consulting with others; DO = dependence on others; DP = desire to please; AI = aspiration for an ideal occupation; WC = willingness to compromise; UI = using intuition.

*p < .01.

As hypothesized, Productive coping was positively correlated with information gathering, information processing, and effort invested. Support-seeking coping was positively correlated with consulting with others, dependence on others, and desire to please others, and negatively correlated with speed of making the final decision. In addition, as hypothesized, Nonproductive coping was positively correlated with procrastination, dependence on others, and desire to please others, and negatively correlated with information gathering and speed of making the final decision. Finally, as can be seen in Table 1, Productive coping was positively correlated with CDA score (r = .29), whereas Support-seeking and Nonproductive coping were negatively correlated with CDA score (r = −.44 and r = −.64, respectively). These results support the convergent and divergent validity of the SCCI.

The Incremental Validity of the SCCI

To investigate the SCCI’s incremental validity, we carried out a hierarchical multiple regression analysis to test the unique contribution of the three major SCCI scales in predicting the RCA score, over and above that of the CDA. First, the CDA score (which was derived from the CDMP) was entered at Step 1, and then the three major SCCI scores (for Productive coping, Support-seeking, and Nonproductive coping) were entered at Step 2, to assess their direct effects on career decision status. The CDA accounted for a significant 4.9% of the variance in career decision status F(1, 388) = 19.98, p < .001. Young adults who had a higher CDA score also reported a more advanced career decision status (β = .22, p < .001). Adding the three major SCCI scale scores increased the accounted-for variance by 4.7%, F(3, 385) = 6.69, p < .001, thus doubling the percentage of the variance accounted for by decision status. Specifically, two of the three SCCI scales contributed significantly to the prediction of career decision status: young adults who reported using more Productive coping strategies (β = .21, p < .001) and fewer Nonproductive coping strategies (β = −.14, p = .03) also reported a more advanced career decision status. When the three SCCI scales were entered, the CDA had no longer a significant contribution to the prediction (β = .07, p = .29). In summary, the Productive and Nonproductive coping strategies predicted career decision status, over and above the CDA score, thus supporting the incremental validity of the SCCI.

Discussion

In the present study, we investigated the associations between the SCCI scale scores (Productive coping, Support-seeking, and Nonproductive coping), on the one hand, and the 12 CDMP dimension scores and the index of CDA derived from it, on the other. Our results showed that each of the three SCCI scales is strongly associated with some CDMP dimensions, though not with all of them, thus supporting the convergent and discriminant validity of the SCCI. This pattern has interesting theoretical implications, as it demonstrates the extent of the empirical overlap between two constructs—coping with career indecision (as measured by the SCCI) and career decision-making profiles (as measured by the CDMP), showing that they are related but distinct constructs. Specifically, Productive coping was strongly positively associated with the three dimensions of the CDMP that focus on the more cognitive aspects of career decision making—more comprehensive information gathering, analytic information processing, and much effort invested. Interestingly, Ginevra, Nota, Soresi, and Gati (2012) found that the same three dimensions of the CDMP are associated with the construct of problem-solving appraisal, which has previously been found to be connected with productive coping (see Heppner, Witty, & Dixon, 2004, for a review).

However, contrary to our hypothesis, Productive coping was not associated with internal locus of control. This finding is incompatible with Folkman’s (1984) view that individuals with an internal locus of control will eventually face and resolve conflicts directly through problem-solving and other productive coping strategies. In addition, we found that Support-seeking was positively correlated with the three dimensions of the CDMP which involve others in the career decision-making process—consulting with others, dependence on others, and desire to please others, and negatively correlated with speed of making the final decision. These results are compatible with the findings of Vertsberger and Gati (2015) that the inclination to seek help among young adults was associated with frequent consulting with others and slow speed of making the final decision. However, the pattern of the associations between the three strategies in the Support-seeking style (i.e., instrumental help-seeking, emotional help-seeking, and delegation) and the CDMP dimensions varied. Specifically, these three coping strategies are positively correlated with frequent consulting with others. However, while instrumental help-seeking was strongly associated with adaptive CDMP dimensions, such as much effort invested in the process (Gadassi et al., 2012, 2013), we found emotional help-seeking and delegation to be strongly correlated with more maladaptive poles of the CDMP dimensions (Gadassi et al., 2012, 2013), such high dependence on others, high desire to please others, and slow speed of making the final decision. These results are compatible with those of Lipshits-Braziler et al. (2015a), which showed that delegation and emotional help-seeking were associated with Nonproductive coping, whereas instrumental help-seeking was associated with Productive coping, in addition to their primary factor, Support-seeking.

We also found that Nonproductive coping was correlated with the more maladaptive dimensions of the CDMP (Gadassi et al., 2012, 2013 ), such as high procrastination, high dependence on others, and desire to please others, minimal information gathering, and slow speed of making the final decision. Moreover, in the present research, CDA score, derived from the CDMP, was found to have strong, significant negative associations with both Nonproductive coping and Support-seeking, while it had a positive but moderate association with Productive coping. These results are consistent with those reported in the literature on coping with stress, which indicate that avoidant strategies are consistently associated with detrimental psychological outcomes, whereas support-seeking and problem-focused forms of coping are associated sometimes with positive outcomes, sometimes with negative ones, and sometimes with neither, depending on the characteristics of the stressful encounter (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004; Skinner et al., 2003). Finally, the regression analysis showed that more use of Productive coping strategies and less use of Nonproductive coping strategies predicted a more advanced career decision status, more so the CDA, thus supporting the incremental validity of the SCCI.

Furthermore, while previous research found the CDMP to be highly stable over a 1-year period (Gati & Levin, 2012), research using the SCCI found that young adults who were deliberating about their career choice changed their coping strategies over a 6-month period (Lipshits-Braziler et al., 2015b), indicating that this construct is more situational than stable (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Therefore, it could be argued that the way individuals make career decisions affects their repertoire of coping behaviors. However, as our study was cross-sectional, future research is required to determine whether there is a causal relationship between these two constructs.

Study 2: The Associations Between Strategies for Coping with Career Indecision and Emotional and Personality-related Career Decision-making Difficulties

To further the investigation of the convergent and incremental validity of the SCCI, we tested its associations with the emotional and personality-related career decision-making difficulties that underlie career indecisiveness (EPCD, Saka & Gati, 2007; Saka et al., 2008). Saka and her colleagues (Saka & Gati, 2007; Saka et al., 2008) developed a theoretical model, and the EPCD questionnaire based on it, to locate the causes of career indecisiveness. The EPCD, which focuses on the more pervasive, chronic career decision-making difficulties, comprises three major scales: Pessimistic Views, Anxiety, and Uncrystallized Self-concept and Identity. The Pessimistic Views scale involves negative cognitive biases and perceptions associated with the decision-making process and the world of work, as well as pessimistic views of individuals’ control over the process, the choice, and the outcome. The Anxiety scale describes individuals’ anxiety about the decision-making process and its outcomes. The Self-concept and Identity scale describes difficulties in forming a stable, independent vocational identity.

Previous research showed that high levels of emotional and personality-related difficulties hinder the career decision-making process (Gati et al., 2011; Saka & Gati, 2007). Therefore, we hypothesized that having more emotional and personality-related career decision-making difficulties would be associated with greater use of Nonproductive coping strategies and less use of Productive coping ones. We had no specific hypothesis regarding Support-seeking strategies. In addition, to assess the incremental validity of the SCCI, we tested its ability to predict individuals’ career decision status, over, and above the EPCD.

Method

Participants

The participants were 454 young adults (aged 18–30) who filled out the questionnaires on the Future Directions website, on their own initiative, in return for feedback about various aspects of their career decision-making process. The data of 42 additional individuals were excluded from the analyses because: (a) they reported that they already knew what major they intended to choose (n = 5), (b) their responses were questionable, based on their responses to the validity items of the SCCI or EPCD (n = 24), or (c) they reported a low level of stress or claimed that they had no difficulties in making a decision (their responses to the Perceived Decisional Difficulty and Distress questions were 1 or 2 [see Study 1]; n = 13). Of the 454 participants whose data were included in the analyses, 280 (61.7%) were women and 174 (38.3%) were men. The participants’ mean age was 23.13 (SD = 2.95), and their mean years of education was 12.44 (SD = 1.22).

Instruments

Perceived Decisional Difficulty and Distress

These scales were described in the Method section of Study 1.

The SCCI

Details about the SCCI are reported in Study 1. The median Cα internal-consistency reliability estimate of the 14 subscales in the present sample was .84 (range .74–.91). The Cα reliabilities of the three major SCCI scales were high: .85, .92, and .89, for Productive coping, Support-seeking, and Nonproductive coping, respectively. As in Study 1, moderate to low correlations were found among the three major scales, namely, r = .15 between Productive coping and Support-seeking, r = .37 between Support-seeking and Nonproductive coping, and r = −.30 between Productive and Nonproductive coping. The results of a CFA showed that the model adequately fits the data (χ²/df [1917.54 /799] = 2.40, RMSEA = .056, CFI = .90, and SRMR = .10), as in Study 1.

The EPCD

The EPCD is a self-report questionnaire aimed at finding the causes of individuals’ pervasive career decision-making difficulties (Saka & Gati, 2007; Saka et al., 2008). The original version of the EPCD included 53 items (Saka et al., 2008). For each statement, participants were asked to rate how well the statement describes them on a 9-point scale (1 = does not describe me at all, 9 = describes me very well; a higher rating indicates a higher level of difficulty). The 53-item version has good internal-consistency reliability (.95 for the total score, and .85, .95, and .88, for Pessimistic Views, Anxiety, and Self-concept and Identity, respectively; Saka & Gati, 2007). We used the short, 38-item version of the EPCD (Gati & Wilner, 2015). The Cα internal-consistency reliabilities of the 38-item version in the present study were .93 for the total score, and .82, .89, and .88 for Pessimistic Views, Anxiety, and Self-concept and Identity, respectively.

RCA

The RCA was described in Study 1.

Procedure

Participants who chose to fill out the SCCI, one of the self-report questionnaires on the Future Direction website, were then directed to fill out the EPCD as well. Using this order allowed us to avoid the potential effect of introspection about the causes of their pervasive difficulties when they reported which strategies they use to cope with career indecision. After completing both questionnaires, the participants responded to the RCA question and reported general demographic information. Then the participants received personalized feedback about their coping strategies and the causes of their pervasive career decision-making difficulties, based on their responses to the SCCI and EPCD. The total time to fill out the questionnaires and receive the feedback ranged from 16 to 22 minutes.

Results

The Convergent and Divergent Validity of the SCCI

To test the SCCI’s convergent and divergent validity, we computed Pearson correlations between the three major scales of the SCCI, on the one hand, and the three major scales and total score of the EPCD, on the other. These correlations, as well as the scores’ means and SDs, are presented in Table 2, which shows, as hypothesized, that the correlation between the Nonproductive coping score and the total EPCD score was positive and high (r = .74). In addition, the Support-seeking score was positively correlated with the total EPCD score (r = .39). As hypothesized, the Productive coping score was negatively correlated with the total EPCD score, but the correlation was low (r = −.25). These correlations support the convergent and divergent validity of the SCCI.

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of the SCCI Scales With EPCD Scales.

	Mean	SD	Productive Coping	Support-Seeking	Nonproductive Coping
Pessimistic views	5.07	1.48	−.21*	.26*	.58*
Anxiety	6.29	1.61	−.16*	.33*	.62*
Uncrystallized self-concept and identity	5.11	1.67	−.28*	.41*	.68*
EPCD total	5.49	1.35	−.25*	.39*	.74*
Mean (SD)			5.67 (1.20)	5.42 (1.95)	5.23 (1.57)

Note. N = 454. Correlations above |.30| are in bold. EPCD = Emotional and Personality-related Career decision-making Difficulties; SCCI = Strategies for Coping with Career Indecision.

*p < .01.

Next we conducted a stepwise multiple regression analysis, with the total EPCD score as the dependent variable, and the three major SCCI scale scores as the predictors. This analysis revealed that three of the SCCI scale scores predicted the EPCD score, adjusted R ² = .56, F(3, 450) = 194.98, p < .001. Specifically, Nonproductive coping accounted for most of the variance, ΔR ² = .542, β = .65, F(1, 452) = 534.60, p < .001, whereas Support-seeking, ΔR ² = .018, β = .17, F(1, 451) = 18.18, p < .001, and Productive coping, ΔR ² = .006, β = −.08, F(1, 450) = 5.78, p = .017, accounted for a small additional variance in the EPCD score.

The Incremental Validity of the SCCI

To test the SCCI’s incremental validity, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used to investigate the unique contribution of the three major SCCI scales in predicting the RCA score, over and above that of the EPCD. First, the total EPCD score was entered at Step 1, to control for its effect. Then the three major SCCI scores (Productive coping, Support-seeking, and Nonproductive coping) were entered at Step 2 to determine their direct effects on career decision status. The EPCD scores accounted only for 1.5% of the variance in career decision status F(1, 452) = 6.78, p = .01. Young adults who had greater emotional and personality-related career decision-making difficulties also reported a less advanced career decision status (β = −.12, p = .01). Adding the three major SCCI scale scores accounted for a further significant 4.1% of the variance, F(3, 449) = 6.57, p < .001. However, only one of the three SCCI scales contributed significantly to the prediction of career decision status: young adults who used more Nonproductive coping strategies (β = −.25, p < .001) reported less advanced career decision status. The EPCD no longer made a significant contribution to the prediction (β = .08, p = .23). In sum, Nonproductive coping strategies predicted career decision status, over and above the EPCD, thus supporting the incremental validity of the SCCI.

Discussion

The present study focused on the associations between the three SCCI scale scores, on the one hand, and the EPCD score, on the other. Supporting our hypothesis, a greater use of Nonproductive coping and Support-seeking strategies was strongly associated with higher levels of emotional and personality-related career decision-making difficulties. In addition, more use of Productive coping strategies was moderately associated with lower levels of emotional and personality-related career decision-making difficulties. These findings are compatible with those of previous studies linking coping behaviors with anxiety and pessimism (Ò'Hare & Tamburri, 1986; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 2001; Weinstein et al., 2002), and support the construct validity of the SCCI. Moreover, our results highlight the detrimental effect of Nonproductive coping on career decision making and provide evidence that these strategies predict not only a higher degree of cognitive decision-making difficulties (Lipshits-Braziler et al., 2015b) but also the emotional aspects of these difficulties (i.e., career indecisiveness). Finally, a regression analysis showed that only the use of Nonproductive coping strategies predicted less advanced career decision status, over and above the EPCD, thus supporting the incremental validity of the SCCI. Together, these results support Lipshits-Braziler et al.’s (2015a) claim that the use of nonproductive coping strategies impedes career decision making to a greater extent than the use of productive coping strategies facilitates it.

Study 3: The Associations Among Strategies for Coping with Career Indecision, Career Decision Self-Efficacy, and Personality Factors

To further investigate the convergent and incremental validity of the SCCI questionnaire, we tested its associations with career decision self-efficacy (CDSE, Betz et al., 1996; Taylor & Betz, 1983), which is the belief about one’s ability to successfully accomplish certain tasks involved in career choice. Taylor and Betz (1983) found that career decision self-efficacy contributes significantly to the prediction of career indecision. Career decision self-efficacy is also positively correlated with career decidedness (Creed, Patton, & Bartrum, 2004). Therefore we hypothesized that a higher level of career decision self-efficacy would be associated with greater use of Productive coping strategies and less use of Nonproductive coping strategies. We had no specific hypothesis regarding Support-seeking strategies.

In addition, we tested the associations between the SCCI and personality factors as measured by the BFI (John et al., 1991). The BFI measures the five major dimensions of normal personality: neuroticism, extroversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. In general, research on personality and coping (see Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007, for a meta-analysis) has found that extroversion and conscientiousness are positively associated with coping strategies that involve engagement (such as problem solving and cognitive restructuring), whereas neuroticism is associated with strategies that involve disengagement (such as withdrawal and wishful thinking). In addition, they found that extroversion and neuroticism predict support-seeking. Therefore, we hypothesized that extroversion and conscientiousness would be positively associated with greater use of Productive coping strategies, whereas neuroticism would be associated with the use of Nonproductive coping strategies. In addition, we tested the hypothesis that extroversion and neuroticism would be positively correlated with the greater use of Support-seeking strategies.

Finally, to assess the incremental validity of the SCCI, we tested its ability to predict individuals’ career decision status over and above predictions based on the CDSE (Taylor & Betz, 1983) and the BFI (John et al., 1991).

Method

Participants

The participants were 451 young adults (aged 18–30) who filled out the questionnaires on the Future Directions website, on their own initiative, in return for feedback about various aspects of their career decision-making. The data of 49 additional individuals were excluded from the analyses because (a) they reported that they already knew what major they intended to choose (n = 4), (b) their responses were questionable, as measured by the validity items of the SCCI (n = 20), or (c) they reported a low level of stress or that stated they had no difficulties in making a decision (their responses to the Perceived Decisional Difficulty and Distress question were 1 or 2 [see Study 1]; n = 25). Of the 451 participants whose data were included in the analyses, 289 (64.1%) were women and 162 (35.9%) were men. The participants’ mean age was 22.55 (SD = 3.11), and their mean years of education was 12.29 (SD = 1.15).

Instruments

Perceived Decisional Difficulty and Distress

These scales were described in the Method section of Study 1.

The SCCI

Details of the psychometric properties of the SCCI are described in Study 1. The median Cα internal-consistency reliability estimates of the 14 subscales in the present sample was .84 (range .73–.94). The reliabilities of the three major SCCI scales were similar to those in Studies 1 and 2: .87, .91, and .88 for Productive coping, Support-seeking, and Nonproductive coping, respectively. As in the previous two studies, moderate to low correlations were found among the three major scales, namely, r = .14 between Productive coping and Support-seeking, r = .30 between Support-seeking and Nonproductive coping, and r = −.31 between Productive and Nonproductive coping. The results of a CFA showed that the model adequately fits the data, as in the previous two studies, χ²/df(1872.2/799) = 2.34, RMSEA = .055, CFI = .90, and SRMR = .08.

CDSE

The CDSE is a self-report questionnaire assessing how confident individuals feel of their ability to effectively navigate the career decision-making process (Betz et al., 1996; Taylor & Betz, 1983). For each statement, participants were asked to rate their self-efficacy for specific decision-making tasks on a Likert-type scale (1 = no confidence at all, 5 = complete confidence). Higher scores reflect greater levels of CDSE. Because we used three questionnaires (the SCCI, CDSE, and the BFI) and we were interested only in the total CDSE score, we asked the participants to fill out the short, 10-item version of the CDSE with 2 items representing each of the five subscales (Gati, Ryzhik, & Vertsberger, 2013). Gati et al. (2013) reported that the Cα internal-consistency reliability of the total score of the 10-item version of the CDSE was .85; and this short version of the CDSE was negatively correlated with career decision-making difficulties (r = −.36). In the present study, the Cα reliability of this version was also .85.

The BFI

The BFI is a 44-item inventory that measures the Big Five factors (dimensions) of an individual’s personality: extroversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience (John et al., 1991). The items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Laski (2002) reported that the Cα internal consistency reliability estimates of the Hebrew version of the BFI were .80. .81, .68, .73, and .76 for extroversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience, respectively. In the present study, we omitted 3 items from the openness to experience factor that involved artistic and aesthetic experiences (which had unsatisfactory psychometric properties, based on the results of a pilot study [N = 219]); thus the BFI we used had 41 items. The reliabilities of the five factors in the present sample were .81, .71, .77, .84, and .75, respectively.

RCA

The RCA was described in Study 1.

Procedure

Participants who chose to fill out the SCCI, one of the self-report questionnaires on the Future Direction website, were then directed to fill out the CDSE and then the BFI. Using this order allowed us to first discover the participants’ coping strategies, and only then elicit their career decision self-efficacy and personality factors, so that responding to the latter questionnaires would not affect their report regarding which strategies they use to cope with career indecision. After completing the three questionnaires, the participants responded to the RCA question and reported general demographic information. Finally, the participants received personalized feedback about their coping strategies, based on their responses to the SCCI. The total time to fill out the questionnaires ranged from 20 to 25 minutes.

Results

The Convergent and Divergent Validity of the SCCI

The Pearson correlations between the three major SCCI scales, on the one hand, and the CDSE and the five BFI dimension scores, on the other, as well as the means and the SDs, are presented in Table 3, which shows that the CDSE had a positive correlation with Productive coping (r = .53), and a moderate but negative correlations, as predicted, with Nonproductive coping (r = −.39) and Support-seeking (r = −.16).

Table 3.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of the SCCI Scales With the Five BFI Factors and the CDSE.

	Mean	SD	Productive Coping	Support-Seeking	Nonproductive Coping
Extroversion	3.24	0.75	.20*	−.02	−.18*
Neuroticism	2.73	0.78	−.28*	.20*	.37*
Agreeableness	4.05	0.53	.17*	−.03	−.15*
Conscientiousness	3.93	0.61	.24*	−.11	−.31*
Openness to experience	3.57	0.67	.18*	−.04	−.06
CDSE	3.42	0.74	.53*	−.16*	−.39*
Mean (SD)			5.87 (1.23)	5.35 (1.84)	4.83 (1.51)

Note. N = 451. Correlations above |.30| are in bold. BFI = Big Five Inventory; CDSE = Career Decision Self-Efficacy; SCCI = Strategies for Coping with Career Indecision.

*p < .01.

In addition, several noteworthy correlations between the Big Five personality dimensions and the SCCI scales were observed. Productive coping had statistically significant but low correlations with the BFI dimensions: neuroticism (−.28), conscientiousness (.24), extroversion (.20), openness to experience (.18), and agreeableness (.17). Support-seeking, in contrast, had a statistically significant correlation only with neuroticism (.20). Finally, Nonproductive coping correlated with four of the BFI dimensions: neuroticism (.37), conscientiousness (−.31), extroversion (−.18), and agreeableness (−.15). The variance in the pattern of associations between the five BFI dimension scores, on the one hand, and the three major SCCI scale scores, on the other, support the convergent and divergent validity of the SCCI.

The Incremental Validity of the SCCI

To test the incremental validity of the SCCI, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used to investigate the unique contribution of the three major SCCI scales in predicting the RCA score, over and above that of the CDSE score and the five BFI dimensions. The five BFI dimensions were entered at Step 1, and the CDSE total score at Step 2, to control for its effect. The five BFI dimensions did not significantly predict career decision status, F(1, 445) = 1.17, p = .32. The CDSE accounted for a significant amount of variance (4.6%) in career decision status, F(1, 444) = 21.53, p < .001, and contributed significantly to the prediction of career decision status: young adults who reported higher career decision self-efficacy (β = .25, p < .001) also reported a more advanced career decision status. However, the addition of the SCCI scales at Step 3 did not significantly increase the proportion of variance in career decision status, F(3, 441) = .55, p = .65. Thus, the SCCI did not predict career decision status, over and above the CDSE, which made a unique contribution to the prediction (β = .24, p < .001).

Discussion

The present study investigated the associations between the three SCCI scale scores, on the one hand, and the CDSE score and the big five personality factor scores, on the other. As hypothesized, Productive coping is positively and strongly associated with CDSE, whereas Nonproductive coping and Support-seeking are negatively but moderately associated with CDSE. These results are compatible with previous research which demonstrated that CDSE is positively correlated with favorable career attitudes and behaviors, as well as with career adjustment, and negatively correlated with career indecision (see Betz & Luzzo, 1996; Prideaux & Creed, 2001, for reviews). Although we found associations between SCCI and CDSE, it is not possible to make direct inferences about causality. Coping strategies might contribute to individuals’ belief that they can successfully complete tasks necessary for making career decisions, and these beliefs might affect their repertoire of coping behaviors. Future experimental studies may reveal the causal direction between these two variables.

Interestingly, the results of the regression analysis showed that the SCCI did not predict career decision status, over and above the CDSE. This result highlights the importance of career decision self-efficacy as a motivational construct in career decision making and supports previous research which found that CDSE is a significant predictor of career indecision (Betz, Hammond, & Multon, 2005; Betz & Voyten, 1997).

In addition, the SCCI correlated in theoretically congruent ways with the personality factors, but the correlations were low to moderate (|.02| < r < |.37|). Specifically, Support-seeking was positively associated with neuroticism, but not with extroversion, as hypothesized. Productive coping was positively correlated with conscientiousness, extroversion, openness to experience, and agreeableness, but negatively correlated with neuroticism. Finally, Nonproductive coping was positively correlated with neuroticism but negatively with conscientiousness, extroversion, and agreeableness. The variance in the pattern of the associations further supports the convergent and divergent validity of the SCCI. Interestingly, the associations of the coping strategies with the five general personality factors (as measured by the BFI) were weaker than their associations with personality factors linked with career decision-making difficulties (as measured by the EPCD in Study 2). This finding highlights the importance of using instruments specific to career decision making in career counseling (Gadassi et al., 2012).

General Discussion

The main goal of the present research was to investigate the construct validity of the SCCI questionnaire (Lipshits-Braziler et al., 2015a) in a series of studies. The present research has several unique features, including (a) using three relatively large (N = 391, 454, and 451) samples of young adults currently deliberating about their career choice rather than university or college students (Larson et al., 1994; Lee, 2005; O’Hare & Tamburri, 1986) or working adults (Weinstein et al., 2002), (b) testing the construct validity of SCCI by analyzing its association with three career decision-making constructs, including career decision-making profiles (Gati et al., 2010), emotional and personality-related career decision-making difficulties (Saka & Gati, 2007; Saka et al., 2008), and career decision self-efficacy (Betz et al., 1996), (c) testing the associations between SCCI and the big five personality dimensions (BFI, John et al., 1991), and (d) testing the incremental predictive effect of SCCI on career decision status (Gati et al., 2003; Saka et al., 2008), over and above the three career decision-making constructs.

The results of the three studies supported the convergent and divergent validity of the SCCI, as evidenced by its associations with other career decision-making constructs. However, the results only partially supported the incremental validity of the SCCI. Specifically, the SCCI was able to predict career decision status over and above career decision-making adaptability and emotional and personality-related career decision-making difficulties but not better than career decision self-efficacy. This result highlights the importance of training young adults in career coping skills (especially reducing the use of Nonproductive coping strategies), while reinforcing their career decision self-efficacy, which may provide them with a solid basis for overcoming career indecision more effectively.

In addition to evaluating the construct validity of a new questionnaire for assessing strategies for coping with career indecision, the present studies have another theoretical contribution to the research on this issue. One of the challenging questions for the Lipshits-Braziler et al. (2015a) model and the SCCI measure is the degree of effectiveness of the various coping strategies. Specifically, Lipshits-Braziler and her colleagues classified coping strategies a priori as productive or nonproductive. However, several researchers have claimed that coping strategies cannot be defined as productive or nonproductive until their effectiveness has been demonstrated empirically (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Zeidner & Saklofske, 1996). Although testing the effectiveness of coping strategies was not a central aim of the present research, we can present some tentative conclusions on this issue. First, we found that the use of Nonproductive coping is strongly associated with other constructs which were found in previous research to hinder decision making (Betz et al., 2005; Gadassi et al., 2012; Gati et al., 2011; Lounsbury, Hutchens, & Loveland, 2005), thus providing additional empirical support for the maladaptiveness of what we have called nonproductive coping strategies. Specifically, we found that more use of Nonproductive coping is strongly associated with less career decision-making adaptability (−.64), more emotional and personality-related career decision-making difficulties (.74), greater neuroticism (.37), less conscientiousness (−.31), and less career decision self-efficacy (−.39). In addition, we found Productive coping strategies to be only moderately associated with greater career decision-making adaptability (.29), fewer emotional and personality-related career decision-making difficulties (−.25), less neuroticism (−.28), and greater conscientiousness (−.24), but strongly associated with greater career decision self-efficacy (.53). In light of these results, it seems that career counselors should focus primarily on helping their counselees reduce the use of nonproductive coping strategies, rather than focusing exclusively on encouraging the use of more adaptive coping behaviors, such as planning, information seeking, and problem solving (Lent & Brown, 2013; Savickas, 2013).

According to the relational theory of working (Blustein, 2011), people have a natural tendency to seek out social support when faced with major decisional tasks. This support has the potential to provide both emotional and instrumental resources that can be helpful for dealing with the challenges of career decision making. Indeed, a number of studies have demonstrated that social and relational support is associated with progress in career decision making (e.g., Phillips, Christopher-Sisk, & Gravino, 2001). However, our results regarding the effectiveness of Support-seeking strategies are mixed. First, we cannot draw a definitive conclusion about the effectiveness of instrumental help-seeking, as it was not significantly correlated with any of the personality factors, or with career decision self-efficacy, and only weakly correlated with career decision-making adaptability (−.15) and emotional and personality-related career decision-making difficulties (.17). However, our results indicate that emotional help-seeking and delegation are maladaptive coping strategies, as they were significantly correlated with neuroticism (.23 and .23, respectively), high emotional and personality-related career decision-making difficulties (.38 and .45, respectively), low career decision-making adaptability (−.42 and −.45, respectively), and low career decision self-efficacy (−.18 and −.26, respectively). The finding regarding the maladaptiveness of delegation coping strategy (i.e., projection of responsibility for decisions onto others) is not surprising, as it is consistent with previous research in career decision making (Gadassi et al., 2012, 2013; Harren, 1979; Scott & Bruce, 1995). Regarding emotional help-seeking, one possible explanation for its maladaptiveness is that it could be used to focus on emotional distress and ruminate with others (Zimmer-Gembeck & Skinner, 2008). However, future studies, using longitudinal designs, are necessary to determine the situations in which support seeking coping strategies (especially those involving instrumental and emotional support) are adaptive and those in which they are not.

Limitations and Future Research

Before discussing the implications for research and counseling, the limitations of the present study should be acknowledged. First, we assessed incremental validity with only one measure (career decision status), so it should be assessed with multiple criteria in future research. Another limitation involves the characteristics of our samples: the participants were young adults who visited a career decision-related website on their own initiative as part of their deliberations. Thus they had taken at least one active step—using the Internet for solving their problems. Therefore, it is important to extend the study and repeat the analyses with young adults who have not yet begun their career decision making. Third, although the studies were based on comprehensive samples, they were carried out in Israel with young adults; therefore they should be replicated in other cultural contexts and with more ethnically diverse samples. In addition, the present data were gathered at a single point in time, so the causal relationships between the various constructs should be directly tested in future studies. Finally, future studies should also test the effectiveness of interventions aimed at decreasing the use of Nonproductive coping strategies and increasing the use of Productive coping for deliberating individuals.

Career Counseling Implications

The 21st century has brought drastic worldwide changes to the workplace, which have created a sense of instability (Nota & Rossier, 2015) that necessitates the use of different conceptual and practice tools to help individuals find support, meaning, and resources while coping with uncertainty and stress (Blustein, 2011). The results of the present studies, combined with previous research (Lipshits-Braziler et al., 2015a, 2015b), show that the SCCI is a reliable and valid measure for assessing SCCI. Therefore, it can be considered an additional counseling tool which may help individuals cope with the challenges of making career decisions in an era of widespread change. Utilizing the SCCI can help counselors pay special attention to clients who use nonproductive coping strategies and encourage reflection about the advantages and disadvantages of using such strategies. Moreover, this initial assessment can be used to assign clients to specific group career interventions, which may help reduce the use of Nonproductive coping strategies and encourage the use of Productive coping strategies. Furthermore, using a before–after design, the SCCI can be used to measure outcomes, such as the effectiveness of career counseling interventions. Specifically, it can assess whether individual or group counseling has succeeded in building up clients’ repertoire of effective coping strategies. Finally, in the light of our results about the effect of career decision self-efficacy on career decision status, it may be proposed that in addition to reinforcing their repertoire of coping skills, interventions aiming at increasing clients’ career decision self-efficacy can be also beneficial for the undecided young adults.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Gali Rachel Cinamon, Nilly Mor, and Lilach Sagiv for their fruitful discussions, and Naomi Goldblum, Zehava Masuri, Dana Vertsberger, and Nimrod Levin for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

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 by the Israel Science Foundation (Grant 380/12), the Samuel and Esther Melton Chair of the second author, and the Anna Lazarus Chair of the third author. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Itamar Gati, Department of Psychology, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91905, Israel. E-mail: itamar.gati@huji.ac.il.

References

Amir

Gati

(2006). Facets of career decision-making difficulties. British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 34, 483–503. doi:10.1080/03069880600942608

Argyropoulou

E. P.

Sidiropoulou-Dimakakou

Besevegis

E. G.

(2007). Generalized self-efficacy, coping, career indecision, and vocational choices of senior high school students in Greece: Implications for career guidance practitioners. Journal of Career Development, 33, 316–337. doi:10.1177/0894845307300412

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. doi:10.1177/1069072704273123

Betz

N. E.

Klein

Taylor

(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.

Luzzo

D. A.

(1996). Career assessment and the career decision-making self-efficacy scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 413–428. doi:10.1177/106907279600400405

Betz

N. E.

Voyten

(1997). Efficacy and outcome expectations influence career exploration and decidedness. The Career Development Quarterly, 46, 179–189. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.1997.tb01004.x

Blustein

D. L.

(2011). A relational theory of working. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 1–17. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.10.004

Brown

S. D.

Rector

C. C.

(2008). Conceptualizing and diagnosing problems in vocational decision making. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 392–407). New York, NY: Wiley.

Connor-Smith

J. K.

Flachsbart

(2007). Relations between personality and coping: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1080–1107. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1080

10.

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:10.1023/B: JOCD.0000025116.17855.ea

11.

Folkman

(1984). Personal control and stress and coping processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 839–852. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.839

12.

Folkman

Moskowitz

J. T.

(2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 745–774. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141456

13.

Frydenberg

Lewis

(1993). Adolescent coping scale. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

14.

Gadassi

Gati

Dayan

(2012). The adaptability of career decision-making profiles. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 612–622. doi:10.1037/a0029155

15.

Gadassi

Gati

Wagman-Rolnick

(2013). The adaptability of career decision-making profiles: Associations with self-efficacy, emotional difficulties, and decision status. Journal of Career Development, 40, 490–507. doi:10.1177/0894845312470027

16.

Gati

Gadassi

Mashiach-Cohen

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

17.

Gati

Gadassi

Saka

Hadadi

Ansenberg

Friedmann

Lisa 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

18.

Gati

Kleiman

Saka

Zakai

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

19.

Gati

Krausz

Osipow

S. H.

(1996). A taxonomy of difficulties in career decision making. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 510–526. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.43.4.510

20.

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:10.1016/j.jvb.2009.11.001

21.

Gati

Levin

(2012). The stability and structure of career decision-making profiles: A 1-year follow-up. Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 390–403. doi:10.1177/1069072712448892

22.

Gati

Ryzhik

Vertsberger

(2013). Preparing young veterans for civilian life: The effects of a workshop on career decision-making difficulties and self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 373–385. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.06.001

23.

Gati

Wilner

(2015). Testing the psychometric properties of the short-form of the emotional and personality-related career decision making difficulties questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.

24.

Germeijs

De Boeck

(2003). Career indecision: Three factors from decision theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 11–25. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00055-6

25.

Ginevra

M. C.

Nota

Soresi

Gati

(2012). Career decision-making profiles of Italian adolescents. Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 375–389. doi:10.1177/1069072712448739

26.

Harren

V. A.

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

27.

Heppner

P. P.

Witty

T. E.

Dixon

W. A.

(2004). Problem-solving appraisal and human adjustment: A review of 20 years of research utilizing the problem solving inventory. The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 344–428. doi:10.1177/0011000003262793

28.

John

O. P.

Donahue

E. M.

Kentle

R. L.

(1991). The big five inventory – Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

29.

Kelly

K. R.

Lee

W. C.

(2002). Mapping the domain of career decision problems. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 302–326. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1858

30.

Larson

M. L.

Majors

M. S.

(1998). Applications of the coping with career indecision instrument with adolescents. Journal of Career Assessment, 6, 163–179. doi:10.1177/106907279800600204

31.

Larson

L. M.

Toulouse

A. L.

Ngumba

W. E.

Fitzpatrick

L. A.

Heppner

P. P.

(1994). The development and validation of the coping with career indecision. Journal of Career Assessment, 2, 91–110. doi:10.1177/106907279400200201

32.

Laski

(2002). The effect of summer break activities and personality variables on stress and burnout among high school teachers in Israel. Unpublished Manuscript, Faculty of Management, Tel Aviv University, Israel.

33.

Lazarus

R. S.

Folkman

(1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.

34.

Lee

K. H.

(2005). Coping with career indecision: Differences between four career choice types. Journal of Career Development, 31, 279–289. doi:10.1007/s10871-005-4741-0

35.

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

36.

Lipshits-Braziler

Gati

Tatar

(2015a). Strategies for coping with career indecision. Journal of Career Assessment. doi:10.1177/1069072714566795

37.

Lipshits-Braziler

Gati

Tatar

(2015b). Strategies for coping with career indecision: Concurrent and predictive validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 170–179. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2015.10.004

38.

Lounsbury

J. W.

Hutchens

Loveland

J. M.

(2005). An investigation of big five personality traits and career decidedness among early and middle adolescents. Journal of Career Assessment, 13, 25–39. doi:10.1177/1069072704270272

39.

Nota

Rossier

(2015). Handbook of life design: From practice to theory and from theory to practice. Boston, MA: Hogrefe.

40.

O’Hare

M. M.

Tamburri

(1986). Coping as a moderator of the relation between anxiety and career decision-making. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 255–264. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.33.3.255

41.

Osipow

S. H.

(1999). Assessing career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 147–154. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1999.1704

42.

Phillips

S. D.

Christopher-Sisk

Gravino

(2001). Making career decisions in a relational context. The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 193–213. doi:10.1177/0011000001292002

43.

Prideaux

L. A.

Creed

P. A.

(2001). Career maturity, career decision-making self-efficacy and career indecision: A review of the accrued evidence. Australian Journal of Career Development, 10, 7–12. doi:10.1177/103841620101000303

44.

Saka

Gati

(2007). Emotional and personality-related aspects of persistent career decision-making difficulties. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 340–358. doi:10.1177/1069072710382525

45.

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

46.

Savickas

M. L.

(2013). Career construction theory and practice. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (2nd ed., pp. 147–183). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

47.

Scheier

M. F.

Carver

C. S.

Bridges

M. W.

(2001). Optimism, pessimism, and psychological well-being. In Chang

E. C.

(Ed), Optimism and pessimism: Implications for theory, research, and practice (pp. 189–216). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

48.

Scott

S. G.

Bruce

R. A.

(1995). Decision-making style: The development and assessment of a new measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 818–831. doi:10.1177/0013164495055005017

49.

Skinner

E. A.

Edge

Altman

Sherwood

(2003). Searching for the structure of coping: A review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 216–269. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.2.216

50.

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. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(83)90006-4

51.

Vertsberger

Gati

(2015). The effectiveness of sources of support in career decision-making: A two-year follow-up. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 89, 151–161. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2015.06.004

52.

Weinstein

F. M.

Healy

C. C.

Ender

P. B.

(2002). Career choice anxiety, coping, and perceived control. The Career Development Quarterly, 50, 339–349. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2002.tb00582.x

53.

Willner

Gati

Guan

(2015). Career decision-making profiles and career decision-making difficulties: A cross-cultural comparison among US, Israeli, and Chinese samples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 88, 143–153. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2015.03.007

54.

Zeidner

Saklofske

(1996). Adaptive and maladaptive coping. In Zeidner

Endler

N. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications (pp. 505–531). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

55.

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

Skinner

E. A.

(2008). Adolescents coping with stress: Development and diversity. The Prevention Researcher, 15, 3–7.