Abstract
This article provides an overview of 47 empirical studies of social cognitive career theory (SCCT) and recent SCCT-based models with a focus on social class and socioeconomic status (SES). We summarize the findings across the studies according to (1) the use of social class or SES as a study variable and (2) low-SES samples based on demographic data. We provide an assessment of the current state of SCCT research on social class and offer directions for advancing SCCT theory and research with attention to how social class can be conceptualized and operationalized within SCCT.
Since social cognitive career theory (SCCT; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994, 2000) was introduced, it has received significant attention in the literature by vocational psychologists as well as scholars outside of this specialty. Data indicate that the original monograph introducing SCCT (Lent et al., 1994) and a later article clarifying the role of contextual factors within the model (Lent et al., 2000) have garnered 3,455 and 1,117 citations (Google Scholar, 2016), respectively, in the literature. More recent developments that have extended SCCT to explain work satisfaction and well-being (Lent, 2004; Lent & Brown, 2008), and the enactment of adaptive career behaviors across the life span (Lent & Brown, 2013) also show promise in terms of usability based on citation counts (454 and 44, respectively). In short, SCCT has been a dominant force over the past 22 years in providing practitioners and researchers with a guiding theoretical framework for understanding career behaviors and outcomes and for developing career-related interventions. In this article, we review the SCCT literature that has examine social class within the model, provide an assessment of the current state of SCCT research on social class, and conclude with recommendations for future SCCT research to advance our understanding of the role of social class in career development and how social class can be conceptualized within SCCT.
Review of the SCCT Literature Encompassing Social Class
In the following sections, we review the extant SCCT empirical literature in the career and educational domains that have focused on social class. First, however, it is important to understand how researchers have defined and measured social class within the vocational psychology literature. According to Brown, Fukunaga, Umemoto, and Wicker (1996), social class is “a term used to refer to a status hierarchy associated with levels and types of economic resources, social valuation, and access to societal control and influence, with no one dimension being sufficient to reliably duplicate social class” (p. 159). Socioeconomic status (SES) has been used as a proxy for social class and has been defined as the stratification of income, educational attainment, and/or occupational prestige (Fouad & Brown, 2000). Using a sociological perspective, social class can be defined and measured by one’s neighborhood and school quality (Diemer & Ali, 2009). Others have argued that social class is a psychological phenomenon (Brown, Fukunaga, Umemoto, & Wicker, 1996, Diemer & Ali, 2009; Lui, Ali, Soleck, Hopps, Dunston, & Pickett, 2004) whereby social class is understood as how a person identifies with a group of people based on her or his relative social and economic standing, producing a social class identity (Brown et al., 1996). This identity shapes how a person perceives and interacts with the world as well as how others perceive and interact with that person (Diemer & Ali, 2009; Lui et al., 2004). Vocational psychology researchers have used objective SES indices (e.g., income, educational attainment, occupation, free/reduced lunch), subjective social class identity (e.g., perceived social class), and environmental SES indices (e.g., neighborhood and school SES) to measure the association of social class and career development. When searching the SCCT literature for the inclusion of social class, we used the above social class definitions.
In the following sections, we review 47 studies that have (a) tested the association of social class and SES variables using the SCCT framework (k = 24) and/or (b) used low-income samples (i.e., urban, eligibility for free or reduced lunch, first-generation college students) to test SCCT variables (k = 38). There is significant overlap between these two categories (k = 15), and studies representing this overlap will be reviewed in both sections. Unless otherwise noted, we use bivariate correlation coefficients (bivariate r) and standardized regression coefficients (β) when reporting relations between SCCT variables. Cohen’s (1988) thresholds of .1, .3, and .5 were used to interpret small, medium, and large effects. Standardized β weights obtained from multivariate analyses are typically smaller than bivariate correlations because the former (standardized β weights) estimates the unique relationship between two variables after accounting for the variance of other variables. Nonetheless, we used the same standards to interpret both bivariate correlations and standardized β weights because there are no standard guidelines for interpreting the latter. Contact the first author for a list of all the articles that we included in our review along with the key social class and SES variables, the domains assessed, and the demographic data on the samples used in these studies. We exclude science, technology, engineering, and mathematics–related studies from this review as they are covered elsewhere (see Fouad & Santana, 2017).
Social Class as an SCCT Model Variable
Of the 24 studies that included social class as a variable, the majority (k = 18) used objective indices such as education, occupation, and income or a combination of these to assess for social class. Others used subjective measures such as perceived social class (k = 4), proxy measures such as first-generation college student status and parents’ career traditionality (k = 2), and one did not specify how social class was assessed. Most participant samples were high school students (k = 13), followed by college students (k = 8), middle school students (k = 2), and adults (k = 2). Fifteen used predominantly White, but racially diverse samples, six were Latino/Latina, with one each of African American, Asian American, and Native American samples. Finally, educational (k = 13) and career (k = 13) domains were evenly represented (Totals exceed 24 in some categories due to overlapping samples or domains.).
These studies suggest that the associations of social class with various SCCT-related variables are mixed. When significant relations were found between social class and SCCT-related variables, those relations were generally small with a few notable exceptions where relations were strong (i.e., Chronister & McWhirter, 2004; Mau & Bikos, 2000). Specifically, objective and proxy measures of SES had a small, positive relation with college self-efficacy (Aguayo, Herman, Ojeda, & Flores, 2011), college grade point average (GPA; Aguayo et al., 2011; DeFreitas, 2011), educational and occupational goals (Ali & McWhirter, 2006; Ali & Saunders, 2009; McWhirter, Torres, Salgado, & Valdez, 2007; Mello, 2009), and persistence in teaching career aspirations (Mau & Mau, 2006). On the other hand, Mau and Bikos (2000) found small and strong relations among objective measures of SES and occupational and educational aspirations, respectively.
Two studies reported interactions between SES and (a) race/ethnicity and (b) race/ethnicity and gender. SES was strongly and negatively related to concerns with future career barriers and level of anticipated difficulty in overcoming these barriers. The negative relations were stronger among women of color than their European American peers (Chronister & McWhirter, 2004). In addition, when testing the interaction of race–ethnicity, gender, and SES using a χ2 automatic interaction detector analysis, the association of race–ethnicity on major choice diminished as SES increased for men, whereas the relation of race–ethnicity on major choice was weak regardless of SES for women (Trusty, Ng, & Plata, 2000). These findings suggest that low SES may constrain college major choice for men, particularly men of color, whereas race–ethnicity and SES do not seem to be strong correlates of college major choice for women.
Previous research that measured perceived social class found small to moderate relations with SCCT-related variables. For example, Thompson (2012) reported a small positive relation between perceived social status and high school outcome expectations and a small to moderate negative relation between the experience of classist events and outcome expectations with personal experiences having a smaller relation than systemic experiences. In addition, efficacy for coping with perceived barriers fully mediated the relations between the perceived social class variables and outcome expectations (Thompson, 2012). When investigating the relations within the realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprise, and conventional (RIASEC) domains, Thompson and Darling (2012) found that the relations of perceived social class to self-efficacy and outcome expectations were partially mediated by learning experiences in the investigative, enterprising, and conventional domains, but not in the realistic or social domains. Both the direct and indirect relations from perceived social class to self-efficacy and outcome expectations were small (Thompson, 2012; Thompson & Dahling, 2012).
Only one study was located that examined objective and subjective SES in relation to SCCT-related variables (Metheny & McWhirter, 2013). Metheny and McWhirter (2013) found that family of origin SES had a small indirect relation with career decision self-efficacy via its relations with subjective social status and perceived family support. Furthermore, they reported that family of origin SES had a small indirect relation with career outcome expectations via both subjective social class and career decision self-efficacy. It is important to note that subjective social status only had a moderate direct relation with career decision self-efficacy but was indirectly related to career outcome expectations via its relation with career decision self-efficacy.
Despite the significant results reported above, other research found no associations between measures of social class and SCCT variables. Specifically, SES was not significantly related to perceived barriers (McWhirter et al., 2007), self-efficacy (Ali, McWhirter, & Chronister, 2005; Flores, Navarro, Smith, & Ploszaj, 2006; Flores & O’Brien, 2002; Gonzalez, Stein, & Hua, 2012; Tang, Fouad, & Smith, 1999; Tannenbaum, Byrne & Dahling, 2013), outcome expectations (Ali et al., 2005), career interests (Tang et al., 1999), career representation for African Americans (Lease, 2006), educational goals (Ali & Saunders, 2006; Gonzalez et al., 2012; Ojeda & Flores, 2008), or college persistence (Wright, Jenkins-Guarnieri, & Murdock, 2012). Perceived social class also did not have a significant relation with life satisfaction (Piña-Watson, Jimenez, & Ojeda, 2014). Bivariate correlations obtained in these studies ranged in absolute values from .05 to .10, while β weights ranged from .01 to .17. This is in comparison to those studies with significant relations among social class and SCCT-related variables where the bivariate correlations ranged from .20 to .50 and β weights ranged from absolute values of .11 to .64.
When examining the above literature collectively, several reasons for the mixed findings are possible. First, despite including social class as a variable in the SCCT model, 15 out of the 24 studies were conducted with low-income samples. It is possible that the restricted range of social class and/or SES may have attenuated obtained effects. Second, the mechanism for measuring social class also may have resulted in mixed findings. Indeed, only perceived social class was directly and significantly associated with self-efficacy (Aguayo et al., 2011; Metheny & McWhirter, 2013) and outcome expectations (Thompson, 2012; Thompson & Dahling, 2012) for college students of color. These findings suggest that subjective social class may be related to educational and career-related beliefs and expectations, particularly the underlying cognitive processes that form these beliefs and expectations (Fouad & Brown, 2000; Thompson, 2012) in a way that objective social class indicators are not. For example, objective social class indicators may have an indirect relation, rather than a direct relation, with self-efficacy and outcome expectations via relations with subjective social status (e.g., Metheny & McWhirter, 2013). On the other hand, when using multiple objective social class indicators, social class was positively related to career barriers (Chronister & McWhirter, 2004), educational and career choice goals (Ali & McWhirter, 2006; Mau & Bikos, 2000; McWhirter et al., 2007; Mello, 2009), intended persistence (Mau & Mau, 2006), and major choice (Trusty et al., 2000). It may be that a robust measure of social class more fully captures the relations among social class, barriers, and exposure to a breath of educational and career opportunities, ultimately leading to expressed educational and career goals. Together, these patterns suggest that future studies (a) include participants from a wide range of social class statuses, (b) measure and test the role of both subjective and multiple objective indicators of social class, and (c) investigate the potential mediating effect of exposure to educational and career options when testing the relations among social class and educational/career choice goals. Finally, a meta-analysis of this literature that controls for sampling errors associated with sample size variability may yield useful insights about the relationships among social class and SCCT variables. A meta-analytic study would also have more power to test hypothesized relationships than individual studies.
Tests of SCCT With Low-Income Samples
Thirty-eight studies tested SCCT-related paths with low-income samples. These studies included students in high school (k = 20), middle school (k = 8), college (k = 8), and adults (k = 3). Fifteen studies included Latina/Latino samples with the remaining including samples that were racially diverse and predominately White (k = 9), racially diverse and predominately racial–ethnic minority (k = 7), African American (k = 6), and Native American (k = 2). The majority of the studies focused on the career domain (k = 22) followed by educational (k = 14) and well-being (k = 3) domains (Totals exceed 38 in some categories due to overlapping samples or domains.). Below we summarize the findings from these 38 articles across the following key SCCT constructs: self-efficacy, outcome expectations, interests, and career/educational outcomes.
Self-efficacy
SCCT posits that self-efficacy beliefs are shaped by learning experiences that are influenced by person inputs and background contextual variables. Few SCCT studies have tested this portion of the model and, instead, have examined direct effects of person and contextual variables on self-efficacy. Researchers have investigated these relations within the domain of career decision self-efficacy, particularly for Latina/Latino middle and high school students. Of these studies, the contextual variable of supports (Gushue & Whitson, 2006) had small to moderate correlations with career decision self-efficacy in expected directions, and Anglo acculturation had a small, positive association with girls’ career decision self-efficacy (Ojeda et al., 2012). On the other hand, the contextual variable of ethnic identity (Gushue, 2006; Ojeda et al., 2012) had moderate to strong positive associations with career decision self-efficacy.
Others found support for the link between contextual variables and other domains of career-related self-efficacy. In these studies, acculturation level (Flores et al., 2006; Rivera, Chen, Flores, Blumberg, & Ponterotto, 2007), Latino and Anglo acculturation (Flores, Robitschek, Celebi, Andersen, & Hoang, 2010), and support (Ali et al., 2005; Flores et al., 2006; Turner & Lapan, 2003) each demonstrated significant positive small to moderate relations with self-efficacy. On the other hand, low difficulty in overcoming barriers and high likelihood of encountering barriers had moderate to strong negative associations with career-related self-efficacy (Ali & Menke, 2014). Finally, first-generation immigrant status (Aguayo et al., 2011), Anglo and Latino acculturation (Aguayo et al., 2011; Ojeda, Flores, & Navarro, 2011), high parental support (Gibbons & Borders, 2010), positive ethnic group beliefs, high resilience (Gonzalez et al., 2012), and positive affect (Ojeda, Flores, et al., 2011) all had small to moderate, positive associations with college self-efficacy with low perceived barriers having moderate to strong associations with college self-efficacy (Gibbons & Borders, 2010; Gonzalez et al., 2012).
In general, the above studies demonstrated that the relations from support variables, ethnic identity, acculturation (i.e., acculturation level, Anglo acculturation, and Latino acculturation), and barrier-related (i.e., perceived barriers and overcoming barriers) variables to self-efficacy were significant and ranged in strength from small to strong associations. Together these findings provide support for direct relations of person inputs and background contextual factors on self-efficacy across academic and career domains for low-income samples. Specifically, the findings demonstrate the importance of enhancing social supports from multiple sources (e.g., parents, teachers, peers, siblings), addressing perceived barriers, and engendering confidence in the ability to overcome these barriers (via demonstrating strategies to do so) when attempting to bolster self-efficacy across racial and gender groups. Finally, for Latina/Latinos, the findings support the significance of being grounded in one’s cultural of origin (e.g., ethnic identity, Latino acculturation) as well as understanding and engaging in the dominant culture (e.g., Anglo acculturation) when building confidence in abilities to successfully engage in academic and career processes.
Outcome expectations
The association between contextual variables and outcome expectations has been documented with low-income samples. The mediating role of self-efficacy beliefs on the relationship between contextual variables and outcome expectations has also been supported. In the career domain, research has indicated that high support (Gushue & Whitson, 2006; Olle & Fouad, 2015; Wettersten et al., 2005), perceived difficulty in overcoming barriers (Ali & Menke, 2014), low perceived barriers (Ali & Menke, 2014; Wettersten et al., 2005), and Anglo acculturation (Ojeda, Pina-Watson, et al., 2011) had small to medium relations to positive career outcome expectations. A positive moderate to strong link between career-related self-efficacy and career-related outcome expectations also was reported across several studies (Ali et al., 2005; Chronister & McWhirter, 2004; Gushue, 2006; Scheuermann, Tokar, & Hall, 2014; Wettersten et al., 2005). In the academic domain, prior research supported significant small to moderate relations from parental support (Gibbons & Borders, 2010) and Anglo acculturation (Ojeda, Flores, et al., 2011) to college outcome expectations. High college self-efficacy was moderately related to low negative and high positive outcome expectations (Gibbons & Borders, 2010; Ojeda, Flores, et al., 2011).
Across the academic and career domains, these studies demonstrated small to moderate associations among contextual variables (e.g., support and barriers) and outcome expectations for participants across race–ethnicity, gender, and geographic locations. Anglo acculturation had a small relation with outcome expectations for Latina/Latinos. As posited by SCCT, findings revealed that self-efficacy is the strongest predictor of outcome expectations with moderate to strong positive relations with positive outcome expectations and moderate negative relations with negative outcome expectations. Similar to the findings related to self-efficacy, evidence points to bolstering support from adults (i.e., teachers and parents), equipping individuals with the confidence to overcome perceived barriers (i.e., perceiving and overcoming barriers), and strengthening confidence in successfully completing career-related tasks (i.e., self-efficacy) when attempting to improve outcome expectations for those from low-income backgrounds. For Latina/Latinos, enhancing the understanding of and ability to engage in the dominant culture (i.e., Anglo Acculturation) may lead to increases in academic- and career-related outcome expectations.
Interests
The majority of research on interests with low-income samples has been done in the career domain and with predominately racial–ethnic minority samples across educational levels (i.e., k = 2 middle school, k = 3 high school, k = 2 college). Although SCCT posits positive direct relations from self-efficacy and outcome expectations to interests, previous research with low-income samples has only examined the path between self-efficacy and interests. These findings suggest that career self-efficacy had strong positive associations with career interests in the domains of nontraditional careers for women (Flores & O’Brien, 2002), prestigious careers (Scheuermann et al., 2014), and in general, across all six Holland domains (Flores et al., 2010; Flores, Spanierman, Armstrong, & Velez, 2006; Jackson, Potere, & Brobst, 2006). The exception was found in Turner and Lapan’s (2003) investigation with Native American middle school students in that small significant relations were found among self-efficacy and interest in the realistic, investigative, artistic, social, and enterprising domains. No significant association was found in the conventional domain (Turner & Lapan, 2003). However, strong associations among career self-efficacy and interest were also supported in the academic domains of history, mathematics, science, reading, computer science, and art (Long, Monoi, Harper, Knoblauch, & Murphy, 2007). Whereas future SCCT research testing the path from outcome expectations to interests is needed, evidence clearly supports the assertion that self-efficacy within specific academic and career domains is strongly and positively associated with interests in corresponding domains. Thus, academic and career interventions promoting interests should target mechanisms that enhance self-efficacy, particularly for students of color from low-income families across the educational pipeline.
Career, educational, and well-being outcomes
SCCT studies conducted with low-income samples have examined SCCT correlates on a variety of career and academic outcomes and personal well-being. Below, we highlight findings from studies that have examined career-related outcomes including types of career choices, career intentions, career goals, and career management behaviors. We also review findings related to academic goals, persistence, and satisfaction and life satisfaction.
Career choice goals
SCCT studies with low-income samples that have examined career choices in the domains of career choice traditionality (and nontraditionality), racial/ethnic group representation in careers, Holland’s RIASEC careers, and career prestige have provided information on contextual and social cognitive correlates with career choices. Four studies examined gender- and racial/ethnic-traditional or nontraditional career considerations. Acculturation to the U.S. culture (Flores & O’Brien, 2002), father’s career nontraditionality (Flores, Navarro, et al., 2006), and feminist beliefs (Flores & O’Brien, 2002) were related to choosing nontraditional careers, whereas perceived barriers (Rivera et al., 2007) were associated with career choice traditionality. Each of these contextual variables had small associations with career choices. Researchers found moderate to strong correlations of both career self-efficacy (Flores & O’Brien, 2002; Lease, 2006; Rivera et al., 2007) and interests (Flores & O’Brien, 2002; Flores, Navarro, et al., 2006; Lease, 2006) with career choice gender- or race-nontraditionality in Latino/Latina and African American low-income samples. For African American students with few perceived career barriers, self-efficacy had moderate and interests had strong ties on careers considered (Lease, 2006).
Career self-efficacy and career interests had small to moderate associations with career choice goals across Holland’s domains in a sample of high school (Flores, Spanierman, et al., 2006) and college (Flores et al., 2010) students. Finally, perceived supports, barriers, and self-efficacy had small relationships (Flores & O’Brien, 2002), whereas outcome expectations and interests had strong correlations (Scheuermann et al., 2014) with the career choice prestige of Latina and Black women.
Career intentions
Olle and Fouad (2015) examined the SCCT predictors of career decision intentions with a low-income sample and incorporated critical consciousness as a proximal contextual variable in the SCCT model. They reported that career decision outcome expectations, emotional support from parents, and critical consciousness were strongly related to and explained a significant amount of variance in career decision intentions. Critical consciousness moderated the relationship between outcome expectations and career intentions such that the relationship was weaker for those with high versus low levels of critical consciousness. This suggests that enhanced awareness of social inequalities may weaken one’s career agency in circumstances where an individual feels powerless in influencing systemic changes.
Career management
Career decision self-efficacy was moderately and positively related to vocational identity and career search activities (Gushue, Clarke, Pantzer, & Scalan, 2006; Gushue, Scanlan, Pantzer, & Clark, 2006). Across multiple racially diverse low-income urban samples, perceived barriers had small to moderate negative relationships with vocational identity (Gushue, Clarke, et al., 2006), school engagement, career aspirations, expectations for reaching career goals, work salience (Kenny, Blustein, Chaves, Grossman, & Gallagher, 2003), and moderate positive relationships with career indecision (Constantine, Wallace, & Kindaichi, 2005). Perceived support had moderate positive associations with career certainty (Constantine et al., 2005) and school engagement outcomes (Kenny et al., 2003; Wettersten et al., 2005), and self-efficacy (Wettersten et al., 2005) was strongly related with school engagement outcomes. In general, the relationships of contextual variables ranged from small to moderate and the associations of self-efficacy were moderate to strong on a variety of career management outcomes.
Career aspirations, expectations, and persistence
High perceived career racial discrimination was strongly related to lower occupational expectations (Hughes, 2011). Career outcome expectations mediated the relation between perceived career racial discrimination and the aspiration–expectation career gap (Hughes, 2011)—the positive association between perceived discrimination and the experience of a gap between aspirations and expectations may be explained by reduced positive outcome expectations. Self-efficacy and outcome expectations were strongly associated with career aspirations (Ali & Saunders, 2009).
Educational plans
A number of studies examined educational goals with low-SES samples, assessing social cognitive correlates of educational aspirations, expectations, and plans. Two studies reported group differences in contextual and social cognitive variables, with high school students who aspired to continue their education after high school and middle school students whose parents attended college reporting lower barriers, higher self-efficacy, and higher positive outcome expectations than their peers who planned to enter workforce after high school and whose parents did not attend college, respectively (Ali & McWhirter, 2006; Gibbons & Borders, 2010). In other studies, low perceived educational barriers (Gonzalez et al., 2012; Ojeda & Flores, 2008), positive ethnic group feelings (Gonzalez et al., 2012), perceived parental support (Ali & Saunders, 2006), Anglo acculturation (Flores, Navarro, & DeWitz, 2008), high self-efficacy (Ali & Saunders, 2006; Tate, Fouad, Marks, Guzman, & Williams, 2014), and family values (Tate et al., 2014) were associated with educational aspirations. Across these studies, self-efficacy and outcome expectations were moderately associated with academic goals, and contextual variables had small to moderate relations with educational plans.
Academic performance and persistence
Three studies tested SCCT models of academic performance/persistence with low-income youth and college students. The interaction of first generation status and Mexican acculturation had a moderate effect on GPA such that for immigrant students, Mexican acculturation was associated with high academic performance in college (Aguayo et al., 2011). Self-efficacy and interests had positive relationships with the GPA of eighth and ninth graders (Long et al., 2007). College self-efficacy for courses at the end of the first semester was positively related with college GPA (Wright et al., 2012). Thus, in terms of academic success, one study suggests a moderate interaction of a person input (i.e., Mexican acculturation) and a background contextual variable (i.e., first generation status) on college academic performance. Two studies indicate moderate to strong relations between self-efficacy and interests with academic achievement.
Well-being
In addition to the SCCT studies reviewed above, three recent studies applied the social cognitive theory of well-being (Lent, 2004; Lent & Brown, 2008) in educational or career domains. Ojeda and colleagues (2011) reported small relationships for positive affect, college self-efficacy, and college outcome expectations, and a moderate relation for academic goal progress on academic satisfaction, collectively accounting for 38% of variance in academic satisfaction. Researchers found that high career decision self-efficacy and few perceived educational barriers were positively related to life satisfaction (Piña-Watson et al., 2014), having moderate and small associations, respectively. Finally, academic/work satisfaction had a moderate correlation with life satisfaction (Ojeda, Flores, et al., 2011; Ojeda & Piña-Watson, 2013).
To summarize, across the various career, academic, and well-being outcomes, contextual variables generally had small to moderate relationships with these outcomes, and self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and interests generally had moderate to strong correlations with SCCT outcomes. This is consistent with the SCCT theory, which posits that social cognitive and interest variables mediate the effects of person inputs and background contextual variables on goals and performance behaviors. Efforts to bolster the academic and career success of individuals from low-income background can focus on developing key personal (e.g., coping skills for effectively combating barriers and discrimination, cultural consciousness) and contextual variables (e.g., social supports) as a path for generating strong social cognitions and interests that are associated with academic, career, and overall well-being.
The SCCT research that we reviewed has generated a good amount of support for the utility of this model with a diverse range of low-income samples in terms of racial–ethnic background, developmental stage, and community setting. The applicability of SCCT is far-reaching and its potential to address important issues that inform career counseling practice and interventions is promising. Future research is needed to test the effectiveness of SCCT-based interventions with low-income individuals aimed at reducing the significant educational and occupational gaps in our society that contribute to income disparities.
The Current State of SCCT Social Class Research
Intersectionality, or the understanding of how multiple social identities are associated with psychological outcomes, has gained attention in recent years (Cole, 2009) and has pushed professionals to emphasize the influence of overlapping identities over prior practices of isolating the influence of single identities such as social class, race, or gender. We are encouraged to see that intersectionality is well represented among the SCCT social-class-related research. Specifically, over 60% of the studies that we reviewed were conducted with samples comprised solely or mostly of racial/ethnic minorities. Of these samples, 15 were Latino/Latina, 6 were African American, 1 was Native American, 1 was Asian American, and 6 were racially diverse with majority of racial/ethnic minority participants. A foundational knowledge base of the relations among the SCCT variables with low-income samples across all racial/ethnic groups provides enhanced precision for informing career counseling practice and interventions and reflects calls for counseling psychologists to use integrative frameworks of race and social class to better understand behaviors (Fouad & Brown, 2000). More SCCT intersectionality research is needed across all racial–ethnic groups but especially with Asian American and Native American samples. In addition, future research that examines how social class intersects with other identities, such as gender, immigrant status, and sexual orientation, is suggested. Finally, none of the studies explored social class as a moderating variable among the SCCT relations, which limits our understanding of how well the relations in the model explain educational and career outcomes for low versus middle versus high social class groups. Future studies of this kind will expand knowledge on the applicability of SCCT across multiple social class groups.
Prior scholars have addressed the importance of incorporating social class constructs in psychological research (Fiske & Markus, 2012; Fouad & Brown, 2000; Liu et al., 2004; Snibbe & Markus, 2005). The majority of the SCCT social class studies did not use social class as a variable in the analyses but instead provided sample descriptions with social class information. Of those that did use social class as a variable, objective measures of social class were used in 90% of the studies. In spite of the theoretical advancements and the availability of measures to assess subjective social class, only two SCCT social class studies examined perceived social class. In assessing social class in future SCCT research, we recommend more consistency across studies in how social class is measured. As we mentioned earlier, we also suggest that more studies include both objective and subjective measures to assess their relative impact on SCCT variables simultaneously.
Theoretical Advancements: Expanding the Role of Social Class in SCCT Research
The social class research reviewed has provided a snapshot of how researchers have used SCCT to understand the career development of individuals from low-SES populations. What is less understood is how we conceptualize class within SCCT. Lent, Brown, and Hackett (1994) described SES as a person input along with gender, race/ethnicity, and disability status. They conceptualized that SES indirectly influences career interests via access to learning opportunities, which directly influence the development of self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations. Thompson and Dahling (2012) tested such a model and found support for this hypothesis. Thus, it is not surprising that of the SCCT studies that included social class as a variable within the model, all but one (Thompson, 2012) conceptualized social class as a person input. To date, there have not been substantive discussions on the various ways in which social class or SES operates to influence career development from an SCCT perspective. Diemer and Ali (2009) compare social class to the operationalization of gender and race within the SCCT model, which are conceptualized as socially constructed constructs rather than biological attributes. In other words, it is both the person’s biological race and gender and the prevailing societal attitudes and actions that have led to systemic inequalities for racial–ethnic minorities and women. Diemer and Ali (2009) argued that social class operates in many of the same ways, but this has yet to be fully articulated and examined within the SCCT model. The advancement of social class research within SCCT requires a clearer articulation of how social class operates within the broader society and how this functions within an individual’s career development. Next, we will turn to a discussion of how social class can be conceptualized within the SCCT model and provide suggestions that we hope will help to advance SCCT research involving social class.
Macrosystemic Perspective
While SES has been identified within SCCT as a person input variable, the concept of social class as a macrosystemic perspective has yet to be discussed. SCCT is primarily concerned with the career development of an individual within a context. This aspect of the theory provides the flexibility needed to take into account multiple environmental factors that may enhance or hinder the career development of persons at different levels of economic security. It also provides a platform to discuss how social class operates at a macrosystemic level (larger cultural systems within a society) and therefore serves as a contextual affordance (or lack thereof).
An example of a macrosystemic influence within the United States is the capitalistic economic system that drives our understanding of work, career, and success. In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber (2002) argued that the protestant work ethic (PWE) influenced Europeans to have greater engagement with secular occupations and this spurred the development of capitalism in northern European countries during the Middle Ages. This was translated into U.S. values through the Puritans when colonial America was founded. The PWE is characterized by a driving force to achieve, a strong individualist focus, and an orientation toward the future and secular occupations (Riccio, 1979). Specifically, this ideology promotes the idea that success is only achieved through hard work and meritocracy and that individual economic failure results from lack of hard work (Hendrickson & Axelson, 1985). These underlying assumptions of the PWE are part of the U.S. cultural fabric and shape, consciously and unconsciously, how we perceive others in society (Ali & Gaasedelen, 2013; Liu & Ali, 2008; Liu et al., 2004). Furnham (1990) discussed the use of PWE within psychological research and its measurement has been conducted in both Western and non-Western countries. In the majority of studies, PWE is assessed using Mirels and Garrett’s (1971) 19-item scale that continues to be used in research today (e.g., Leong, Huang, & Mak, 2013; Linderbaum & Levy, 2010; Rode, Judge, & Sun, 2012). This scale primarily assesses attitudes toward work values as well as asceticism, deferred gratification, and beliefs about the distribution of rewards in society (Dunn, Grasso, & Saunders, 2014).
Since PWE can be assessed through self-report measures, it might be of interest to determine how PWE is associated with the development of self-efficacy and outcome expectations. Because outcome expectations deal with the likely outcomes of any given career-related decision, it is plausible that PWE, which can be conceptualized as attitudes toward work, could directly influence an individual’s outcome expectations. For example, those who highly endorse PWE attitudes might report high outcome expectations (e.g., if I work hard, I will be rewarded) because PWE is tied to individual work rewards and attainment. Further, PWE may contribute to the development of classism that can also operate to influence cognitive mechanisms such as self-efficacy and outcome expectations.
Recent advancements on social class theory have addressed the ways in which PWE perpetuates downward classism, or the negative attitudes toward the poor or those of a lower class status (Liu et al., 2004). Researchers have discussed the need for a more consistent measurement of social class and classism (Lau, Cho, Chang, & Huang, 2013), and the development of a downward classism measure that captures these experiences would be an important advancement in understanding downward classism within SCCT. Ali, Fall, and Hoffman (2013) describe how this form of discrimination by people who have the most economic resources against those who have the fewest resources (i.e., downward classism) may affect individual work and career identities. More specifically, these researchers advocated for the investigation of how long-term downward classist messages are internalized by children and adolescents whose primary caregivers have experienced chronic unemployment.
Classism that emanates from the constructions of social class within the U.S. capitalistic system can operate as a contextual variable much like experiences of racism (Liu et al., 2004). Within SCCT, classism can be operationalized as a background contextual variable to better understand its effects on career development via learning experiences that in turn affects academic or career-related self-efficacy beliefs. Experiences of classism may function as a career barrier whereby individuals who live in impoverished areas are denied access to opportunities that shape self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectancies. Thompson’s (2012) study on the relationship between career barriers and college outcome expectancies is the only one to date that has conceptualized experiences with class-related discrimination as barriers to SCCT variables. Her findings that more encounters with classism were related to low college outcome expectations among a sample of Native Americans suggest that one’s subjective experiences related to classism may play a significant role in shaping career-related cognitions. More SCCT research that examines social class constructs at the macro level, such as perceptions of classism, can provide much needed information on how to intervene at both the individual level and systemic levels to lessen the negative effects of class-based discrimination.
Classism is entrenched within the context of government and local community systems. Another example of how classism operates at a macrosystemic level in our public education system is reflected in the term “pedagogy of poverty” (Haberman, 1991). Based on Haberman’s observations in thousands of urban classrooms, he described the stark differences between the tightly controlled routine of overly scripted teaching and assignments in urban classroom as compared to the freedom, creativity, questioning, collaborating, and discovering that is common in suburban classrooms. In this case, classism at a macrosystemic level is inserted within the educational systems on a widespread level and institutionalized through curriculum delivery methods. Interdisciplinary research in this area may be helpful to better understand how the pedagogy of poverty can be operationalized within an SCCT framework. More specifically, working with colleagues in elementary and secondary education who can measure different types of curriculum methods could lead to studies that demonstrate how different educational practices relate to students’ sociocognitive variables. For example, a study involving classroom observations of instructional delivery methods (e.g., how much time is spent on direct instruction vs. creative thinking) combined with student report on measures of self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and goals might be helpful in addressing the association between pedagogical methods and student career outcomes. Education that values and supports creativity and critical thinking is a type of learning experience that may lead to different levels of career-related self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and interests than instruction that requires rote memorization. Each of these approaches may translate into different educational and career opportunities for youth. Thus, future SCCT research can test the educational setting as a background contextual variable to examine its effects on learning experiences as well as self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and goal mechanisms.
Income and wealth disparities are other macrosystem factors that influence individual career development and could be further investigated from the SCCT perspective as a moderating variable. It is widely known that wealth disparities are a major factor influencing the economy within the United States. These disparities are shaping political discourse and driving different visions of national economic policy to remedy the disparities, especially within communities of color. Ali (2013) describes how these larger macrosystemic forces operate within these communities, but these have yet to be investigated by career development researchers. More specifically, she discusses the structure of opportunity issues that exist among historically marginalized groups as follows: Shapiro, Meschede, and Sullivan (2010) describe the “broken chain of achievement” that contributes to higher poverty rates among African Americans. Through decades of social policy research, these authors concluded that the data demonstrate huge disparities in wealth between White Americans and their African American counterparts in the same income categories (i.e., comparing those in the same jobs). Essentially, it would be assumed that those in the same income bracket would be able to accumulate wealth at the same rate, but the data show that income equality does not lead to wealth equality and that job achievements cannot predict a family’s wealth holdings. Largely, this is due to African American families’ reliance on credit for emergency purposes as opposed to other financial resources available to Whites (e.g., inheritance, monetary gifts from parents). Because of decades of an unequal opportunity structure, African Americans cannot rely on past generations to assist them with financial needs. Shapiro et al. (2010. p.2) write, “African Americans who have worked hard at well-paying jobs to achieve the American Dream are still not able to achieve the wealth of their peers in the workforce, which translates into very different life chances.” (Shapiro, Meschede, & Sullivan, 2010, p. 130)
To summarize, we conceptualize macrosystemic variables related to class as contextual variables within the SCCT model. We provided a number of approaches that researchers can use to operationalize macrosystemic variables within SCCT, including assessing the relations of PWE attitudes, perceived classist experiences, and instructional methods used in urban and nonurban school settings to SCCT variables. In addition, researchers can explore whether macrosystem variables such as school setting (urban, rural, and suburban), family income disparity level, and communities categorized by wealth (high wealth and low wealth) moderate the effects among SCCT variables.
Microsystemic Factors
Beyond the macrosystemic perspective, there is much research to be done to understand how social class or SES operates as a microsystemic influence on career and educational development (Fouad & Brown, 2000) from an SCCT perspective. SCCT research has already demonstrated that family and school influences are key in shaping self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, interests, and choice actions (e.g., Ali et al., 2005; Flores, Navarro, et al., 2006; Gushue & Whitson, 2006; Olle & Fouad, 2015; Turner & Lapan, 2003). However, much of this research has been conducted without attention to how social class and classism are tied to individual family support behaviors or belief systems or how these behavioral supports or belief systems may shape career development. We now turn to a discussion of ways that SCCT can better inform new research to better understand these influences at a microsystem level.
Family, peer, and school influences
A few studies have examined the influence of SES on postsecondary options of students at varying levels of SES. In one of these studies, Ali and McWhirter (2006) investigated the contributions of SES (based on parental occupation and education) to decisions to pursue vocational technical school work after high school and found that low-SES and other SCCT variables (i.e., low college outcome expectations, low vocational/educational self-efficacy, and high perceived barriers) were associated with vocational technical training and work for a sample of Appalachian students. However, they used an objective indicator of SES (Hollingshead, 1979) to ascertain the status of each family, which may limit our understanding of the types of messages or information students are receiving about career options (Liu et al., 2004). In other words, objective measures are helpful in suggesting that different socioeconomic standings are related to certain career outcomes but do not help to explain what specific mechanisms of social class are operating. For example, Ali and McWhirter (2006) found that lower SES youth with lower self-efficacy, fewer positive outcome expectations for college, and higher barriers planned to pursue lower level types of employment immediately after high school when compared to their higher SES counterparts. Although this study provides some information about what factors may influence these youth’s postsecondary aspirations, there is a great deal of information that are missing. Specifically, how these beliefs and attitudes were formed is still a mystery. Did their parents, peers, communities, and school systems tell them college was not an option? Did their parents hope that their children attend college, but realize that they did not have the resources to send them? Did their siblings attend college and return to the community because they did not “fit in” with their peers in college? Or do these families and communities more highly value working and skills that are not provided in a college curriculum?
Social support may also be shaped by social class and have an impact on career development in similar ways. Several studies have examined the effects of perceived support from various social sources, including parents, peers, and teachers among low-SES participants (e.g., Ali et al., 2005; Gushue & Whitson, 2006; Olle & Fouad, 2015). Future research might explore how support behaviors are linked to social class values, and whether the ways in which support behaviors are manifested vary from parents, siblings, peers, and teachers based on social class background.
Recent theoretical advancements on social class assume that beliefs and behaviors are connected to how classism operates within the communities in which one lives (Liu et al., 2004). As we described earlier, downward classism might operate within the school system via the “pedagogy of poverty.” On the other hand, lateral classism, a form a classism perpetrated by members of the same social class community to keep other community members at the same social status (Liu et al., 2004), may operate within the larger community. Perhaps in the Ali and McWhirter (2006) study, lateral classism was operating because of the strong pressure or desire of family and peers to keep students in the Appalachian community and thus, work options closely connected to the community were more valued among low-SES youth over traveling long distances to attend college. This may be a form of outcome expectations that students expected better outcomes, such as making parents happy, from choosing local work options. On the other hand, upward class bias may operate among teachers and professionals who believe that the path toward success and happiness is achieved through very specific paths (i.e., attending college, pursuing high prestige careers). This may shape the beliefs among youth that only certain career paths are viable or respected. The role of classism among important others who exert influence on an individual’s career development can be further investigated to understand how it shapes career-related attitudes and behaviors. Currently, there is no published measure that assesses either lateral or upward classism. This could be an important area of future research exploration.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we are pleased to see a growing trend in SCCT research employing social class variables. Of the 47 studies that we located, 77% were published between 2006 and 2015. We hope that this trend continues and that SCCT research consistently incorporates social class into empirical studies to ground our knowledge of its relation to career outcomes in scientific evidence. We also hope that future SCCT research extends knowledge of the role of social class and SES by expanding conceptualizations of social class beyond a person input variable to include other micro- and macrosystemic factors related to class.
Individuals from low social class backgrounds often face challenges to their career development related to limited financial and social capitals. Understanding factors that influence the intended and actual educational and occupational goals and persistence behaviors of people from low social class backgrounds is important in the development of prevention and intervention programs targeted at enhancing and supporting their career goals. The findings of the studies that we reviewed provide support that social class influences a range of SCCT variables and that the SCCT model is useful in explaining the academic and career outcomes of persons from poor and working class backgrounds. The SCCT model provides an excellent framework for future investigations of social class as a contextual variable and the various forms in which it may operate in career development from both macro- and microsystem perspectives.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.