Predictors of Career Decision Self-Efficacy

Abstract

We examined sex, socioeconomic status (SES), classism, modern sexism, and locus of control as uniquely contributing factors to college students’ career decision self-efficacy. A total of 139 college students participated in the survey, and the hypothesis was tested with hierarchical regression. Results revealed that (a) sex and SES do not significantly contribute to classism and modern sexism to college students’ career decision self-efficacy and (b) classism and modern sexism, internality and luck uniquely contributed to college students’ career decision self-efficacy above and beyond the variances accounted for sex and SES. Results indicate the importance of classism and modern sexism over actual sex and SES in predicting college students’ career decision self-efficacy.

Keywords

classism modern sexism locus of control career decision self-efficacy

Career development is a lifelong process, and individual and environmental factors affect an individual’s career path. Within the fields of career development and vocational psychology, numerous researchers support the idea that career developments do not occur in a vacuum; they have also investigated factors that facilitate or hinder an individual’s career decision-making process (Fouad & Brown, 2000; Thompson & Subich, 2011). Given the relation of an individual’s demographic conditions to the educational and occupational opportunity structures inextricably linked with career development, the effects of race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), and sex as barriers to career development have been identified (Brown, 2004) and investigated (Howard et al., 2011; Luzzo, 1993; Powers & Wojtkiewicz, 2004; Worthington, Flores, & Navarro, 2005). Research findings suggested that economically marginalized youth of color have lesser career aspirations for prestigious occupations than youth with middle or higher SES (Howard et al., 2011). The glass ceiling effect has also been reported regarding gender inequalities in career development; women experienced more difficulties and obstacles relative to men in moving up the hierarchy (Bombuwela & Chamaru, 2013; Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 2012). Compared with the level of interest on the effects of SES and sex on career development, however, the effects of sexism and classism on career decision-making process have been overlooked. More specifically, few studies have focused on identifying how individuals’ sexism and classism would affect their career decision-making process (Thompson & Subich, 2006, 2011), but no research has focused on investigating the divergent effects of sexism and classism and actual SES and sex on career development.

Recently, how intersectionality, or the understanding of how multiple social identities are associated with career development process has gained attention (Duffy, Blustein, Diemer, & Autin, 2016). Among the various career development theories, social cognitive career theory (SCCT; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994, 2000) conceptualized that sex and social class as personal inputs. Recently, Flores, Navarro, and Ali (2016) suggested how social class, SES, and classism operated within the SCCT framework. Specifically, Flores et al. (2016) suggested that social identities, such as gender and social class, are needed to be conceptualized at the macrosystemic level, so the influences of social identity–based discrimination or oppression (e.g., sexism and classism) can be operationalized as background contextual variables within the SCCT. According to Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory, SCCT emphasized the cognitive-person mechanism (including self-efficacy and outcome expectations) that determines individuals’ vocational interests, goals, and actions. Specifically, Lent, Brown, and Hackett (1994, 2002) proposed that demographic and individual difference variables interact with background contextual variables to affect learning experiences that play a role in forming self-efficacy beliefs. Learning experiences would include subjective experiences of various forms of -ism such as sexism and classism that are outcome of social discrimination and marginalization (Flores, Navarro, & Ali, 2016; Fouad, Singh, Cappaert, Chang, & Wan, 2016). The insidious oppressive experience tied to various social identities begins at birth and influence on individual’s sense of control over their life (Sue, 2010).

Various studies have investigated the effects of sex and SES on career-related self-efficacy (Ali, McWhirter, & Chronister, 2005; Ali & Saunders, 2009; Koch, Konigorski, & Sieverding, 2014; Lapan, Boggs, & Morrill, 1989) and have consistently reported that low levels of self-efficacy of women and economically marginalized population are highly associated with the restricted range of career options (Hackett & Betz, 1981; Walpole, 2003). To our knowledge, however, none of the previous studies has attempted to distinguish between the effects of demographic factors (e.g., sex and SES) and perceived discrimination and the worldview associated with their demographic factors.

Thus, based on the SCCT framework, we investigated the unique effects of classism and sexism on shaping career decision self-efficacy after controlling for the variance accounted for by the effects from sex and SES. In addition to sexism and classism, we examined the effects of locus of control (which can be considered another outcome of the learning experience) on college students’ career decision self-efficacy.

Career Decision Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy refers to one’s belief on their ability to be successful in performing a behavior that influences the decision whether they are going to engage in that behavior and how much effort is exerted (Bandura, 2001). Career decision self-efficacy is the one of the specific type of self-efficacy within the domain of career decision process (Hackett & Betz, 1981). Career decision self-efficacy is defined as individual’s confidence of engaging in tasks associated with making career choice and committing a career successfully (Taylor & Betz, 1983).

Career decision self-efficacy is one of the main and most popular constructs within career development. According to Bandura (1997), the main sources of self-efficacy are (a) performance experiences, (b) vicarious experience, (c) verbal persuasion, and (d) physiological and emotional states. An individual’s motivation to control one’s environment is one of the most powerful resources of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). If an individual perceives his or her career-related performance outcome as successful, an individual’s career decision self-efficacy will be strengthened. Conversely, an individual’s perception of performance outcome as a failure is likely to inhibit career decision self-efficacy. Moreover, sexism and classism affect individuals’ perception of the environment such that individuals feel frustrated and helpless (Liu, 2011; Smith, Foley, & Chaney, 2008). Thus, development of self-efficacy would be affected by the individual’s responsiveness to the environment in which classism and sexism are directly or indirectly experienced. Both personal and vicarious experiences of sexism and classism in daily life would affect one’s belief in one’s agency.

A wealth of research on the effects of sexism on career decision self-efficacy exists, but no studies have focused on such effects arising from classism. On the effect of sexism on career development, a research finding indicated that female college students reported stronger self-efficacy for performing traditionally women-dominant occupations (Betz & Hackett, 1981). Self-efficacy beliefs were also significantly related to sex differences in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); women reported lower levels of self-efficacy related to STEM compared to men (Lapan et al., 1989). Recently, Koch, Konigorski, and Sieverding (2014) suggested that the sexist behavior of an interviewer in a simulated job interview caused lower performance in intelligence tests of German female college and graduate students but not for their male counterparts.

Regarding the effects of SES on career decision self-efficacy, Ali, McWhirter, and Chronister (2005) found that self-efficacy for career planning behaviors is significantly and positively correlated with SES for low-income ninth grade youth, but results of hierarchical regression analysis showed that the addition of SES after social support and perceived educational barriers did not account for unique variance in career self-efficacy. For in-depth understanding of the contribution of SES to self-efficacy, Ali et al. (2005) suggested further research should be conducted on self-reported subjective social class and its effect on one’s life. Furthermore, Huang and Hsieh (2011) found that SES had significant effect on career decision self-efficacy of Taiwanese college students. Thus, given previous inconsistent findings on the relations among sex, SES, and career decision self-efficacy, an investigation regarding the effects of sexism and classism on career decision self-efficacy after controlling variances accounted for by sex and SES is necessary.

Classism

Attention to classism has increased recently, and a theoretical framework (Duffy et al., 2016; Flores et al., 2016; Liu, 2001) and empirical findings (Ritz & Hyers, 2005; Thompson & Subich, 2006) supported the idea that classism is the most pivotal and powerful variable that acts as a barrier in an individual’s career decision-making process and its outcomes. Classism has been defined differently within various related areas; in this study, it is defined as “the prejudice and discrimination based on social class resulting from different social classes” (Liu, 2001, p. 137). Classism is a one of the key markers that individuals are differently privileged and marginalized, and a function of inequality that is an outcome of insidious processes that begin at birth (Diemer & Rasheed Ali, 2009). Classism influences to access and utilize a full range of supports and resources that facilities the career development processes and outcomes (Duffy et al., 2016).

Increased attention has also been given to the effects of SES on career development. Ali and Saunders (2009) found that SES explained the significant variance in career aspirations of high school students in a rural area, and Blustein and his colleagues found that participants with higher SES who are in the school-to-work transition period reported more career-related support from parents than their lower SES counterparts. Chaves et al. (2004) also reported that poor and working class youth have a view of work that emphasized its extrinsic outcomes (e.g., money) more than its intrinsic ones (e.g., interests). These findings support the importance of (a) examining the effects of social class on career development and (b) reexamining career development theories to address how social class and classism affect an individual’s career development.

Classism could influence cognitive mechanisms, such as self-efficacy and outcome expectation (Flore et al., 2016), however, relatively few studies address classism and its relation to career development (Liu, Soleck, Hopps, Dunston, & Pickett, 2004; Thompson & Subich, 2011). Ritz and Hyers (2005) conducted qualitative research with 38 low-income undergraduate college students on the extent to which students experienced classism in their college life and the nature of these experiences. They found five themes: (a) middle-class assumptions derived from peers, instructors, and staff; (b) classist comments; (c) bureaucratic difficulties; (d) experiences with others who show off their social class; and (e) experiences of being excluded by others. Ostrove (2003) suggested that individuals from a lower social class experienced subtle classism, alienated feelings, and lack of academic preparation and family support. Thompson and Subich (2013) claimed that one of the major reasons for the deficiency in addressing classism is the lack of measurement of classism, and they developed the Experiences With Classism Scale (EWCS). With EWCS, Thompson and Subich (2011) investigated the mechanism whereby personal and systemic classisms affect career decision self-efficacy and career indecisiveness through internalized social class status identity that includes race- and class-based socialization experiences. They found that personal classism had a negative association with career decision self-efficacy, whereas systemic classism exhibited an indirect effect on career decision self-efficacy and career indecision via social class status identity.

Modern Sexism

Sexism refers to prejudice or discriminatory attitudes or behaviors that promote stereotypes of socially constructed roles based on sex (Heppner & Jung, 2013). Sexism is not limited to within an individual’s attitude, rather it is built and continues into social and cultural policies and environments. Discrimination against women still exists in the workplace, which manifests as inequality in job opportunities, payment, and promotion (Reskin & Ross, 1995). Although the situation improved slightly based on the 2010 report, women still earn 86% of the income of men for factors that cannot be explained solely by education, job experience, or job type (U.S. Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters 2011).

Nowadays, sexism is expressed in both overt and covert form (e.g., denial of discrimination against women), and the covert form of sexism is called modern sexism (Swim, Mallett, & Stangor, 2004). Modern sexism denies continued discrimination based on sex and claims enhanced women’s status by containing residual belittling attitudes toward women (Swim et al., 2004). Modern sexism differs from traditional or blatant sexism, which overtly claims women’s inferiority. Modern sexism is more prevalent and a better predictor of discrimination based on sex than overt sexism because modern sexism is socially acceptable compared to overt sexism. Modern sexism is expressed by being insensitive to sexist language (Swim et al., 2004) and gender inequality (Davies-Netzley, 1998). Modern sexism is often invisible because it is embedded in cultural and societal norms (Swim & Cohen, 1997).

Modern sexism affects not only job attainment but also promotion opportunities. The glass ceiling theory explains the phenomenon wherein women leaders are rare because of the barriers of prejudice and discrimination (Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 2012). Role congruity theory suggested that the discrepancy between female gender roles and leadership roles leads to less favorable attitude toward female leaders (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Heilman, Block, and Martell (1995) found that people described successful female managers as being more hostile and less rational than successful male managers. Women leaders are perceived less favorably because the stereotypes of a leader are more compatible with men; women are also less likely to be evaluated for their potential as leaders because of gender stereotypes (Eagly & Karau, 2002), which can limit their opportunity for career advancements. Such phenomena could also limit women’s perceived sense of control in making career decisions.

The SCCT model demonstrates that contextual barriers and supports based on gender influence women’s career choice (Lent et al., 2003), and the barriers women experience include microaggressions based on overt and covert sexism, and role stressors women experience (Fouad et al., 2016). For example, female engineers’ turnover intentions and decisions were influenced by their experiences of workplace support (Fouad et al., 2016).

Locus of Control

Locus of control is defined as one’s belief that one’s own ability, effort, or actions will determine what would happen (Rotter, 1966). Locus of control includes two factors: internal and external loci of control. Internal locus of control refers to attributing outcomes of events to their own control, whereas external locus of control refers to attributing outcomes of events to external circumstances, such as luck and fate (Millar & Shevlin, 2007).

Locus of control is often associated with an individual’s achievement (Gifford, Briceno-Perriott, & Mianzo, 2006), and direct relation between the locus of control and career-related variables has been established theoretically and empirically (e.g., Blustein, 2006; Duffy, 2010; Lease, 2004). Judge and Bono (2001) conducted a meta-analysis which found that individuals with greater internal locus of control have greater job satisfaction and better job performance because they do not stay in unsatisfactory jobs and have better chances of job success. With a sample of 1,991 undergraduate students, Duffy (2010) also found that students with a greater sense of personal control have more career adaptability. In addition, Cellini and Kantorowski (1984) studied 290 undergraduate students and found that students with internal locus of control were more decisive about their career plans than students with an external locus of control. Another study indicated that undecided college students were found to have more external locus of control (Gordon & Steele, 2015). Thus, given the previous findings, we hypothesized that internal locus of control is positively associated with career decision self-efficacy.

Hypothesis

Based on the previous literature and theory of SCCT, we examined (a) the effects of sex and SES on college students’ career decision self-efficacy and (b) the effects of perceived classism, sexism, and locus of control after controlling the effects of sex and SES. The purpose of the study was to examine the unique effect of perceived classism, sexism, and locus of control, separate from the effect of sex and SES on career decision self-efficacy. Therefore, we developed two hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 states that sex and SES will contribute uniquely to college students’ career decision self-efficacy, whereas Hypothesis 2 states that classism, modern sexism, and four subscales of locus of control will contribute uniquely to college students’ career decision self-efficacy after controlling for the variance explained by sex and SES. In particular, three subscales of luck, helplessness, and powerful others will have a negative effect on career decision self-efficacy, but internality will positively affect career decision self-efficacy.

Method

Participants

The sample (N = 139) included 97 (70%) women and 39 (28%) men, ages 18–43 (M = 23.74; standard deviation = 5.0). Education level was as follows: 46 (33.1%) first-year undergraduates, 17 (12.2%) sophomores, 24 (17.3%) juniors, 27 (19.4%) seniors, and 23 (16.5%) fifth-year undergraduate students. Among the participants, 75% (n = 103) reported that they are White, 14.4% (n = 20) reported that they are Latino, 7.2% (n = 10) reported that they are Black. In addition, there were three international students, three Asian American students, and three multiracial students in the sample. Regarding sexual orientation, most participants (n = 137, 98.6%) reported that they are heterosexual and only two students reported that they are lesbian/gay. Regarding annual income level in the household in which students were raised, 29 students (20.9%) reported that they were raised in a household with less than US$40,000 annual income, 36 students (25.9%) reported that they were in the US$40,000 to US$59,999 range, 29 students (20.9%) were in between US$60,000 and US$89,999, and 45 students (32.4%) reported that they were in the US$90,000 and higher range. Fifty-three students (38.1%) reported that they belonged to the first generation of college students while 86 students (61.9%) reported otherwise.

Procedures

Participants were recruited through the SONA system, an online survey participation system that provides extra credits for students participating in the survey. The student participants came from two universities: one was located in a small campus town in Texas and another university was located near a metro area in New Jersey. We conducted multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) to check for significant differences in responses based on university affiliation, and the results were not significant, F(7, 131) = 0.22.

Measures

SES

SES was measured with a question on annual household income, consisting of four options: (1) less than US$40,000, (2) US$40,000–59,999, (3) US$60,000–89,999, (4) US$90,000 and higher. SES is commonly conceptualized as the social standing of an individual (American Psychological Association [APA] Task Force on SES, 2007) that can be measured differently depending on intended use. According to the APA Task Force on SES (2007), SES is a combination of education, income, and occupation. Because our participants were college students whose level of education and occupation were almost identical, we only overtly asked their annual income.

Classism

Classism was measured by EWCS (Thompson & Subich, 2013). The EWCS was designed to investigate experiences with everyday classism according to everyday prejudice literature (e.g., Swim, Cohen, & Hyers, 1998). The scale has 25 items with two subscales, personal and systemic. The personal classism subscale consists of 18 items such as “How many times have you been treated unfairly in the past year by teachers and professors because of your social class?” The systemic classism subscale consists of 7 items such as “How often have you felt frustrated with all of the steps that you had to take with the financial aid office or banks in order to have access to money for school?” Responses to all items of EWCS were made on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never happened to me) to 6 (happened almost all of the time; more than 70% of the time). The internal consistency reliability coefficients of the EWCS subscales were .95 for personal subscale and .85 for systemic subscales. In this study, we used the total score for measuring classism and Cronbach’s α for the total score was .97. The EWCS subscales were also positively related to the institutional and interpersonal classism subscales of the Classism Experience Questionnaire (CEQ; Langhout, Rosselli, & Feinstein, 2007) but were not related to CEQ’s citational classism subscale. EWCS was also positively correlated with depression, anxiety, and stress but not related to negative affectivity or social desirability (Thompson & Subich, 2013). Thus, convergent and discriminant validities were supported.

Modern sexism

Modern sexism was measured using the Classical and Modern Sexism Scale (Akrami, Ekehammar, & Araya, 2000), which consists of two subscales: 7 items of classical sexism and 7 items of modern sexism. The classical sexism subscale includes vivid discrimination or prejudice toward women. Modern sexism includes several underlying elements such as (a) denial of continued discrimination (e.g., “Humiliation of women is unusual”), (b) antagonism toward demands (e.g., “Abolish women’s movement”), and resentment about special favors (e.g., “Do not adapt school to girls’ needs”). In this study, we only used the modern sexism subscale. Responses to all items were made on a 5-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The internal consistency reliability values were satisfactory: .73 for the classical and .80 for the modern sexism subscale. The positive correlation with modern racial prejudice, classical racial prejudice, and conservatism supports the construct validity of the scale (Ekehammar, Akrami, & Araya, 2000). Cronbach’s α of the modern sexism subscale in this study was .70.

Locus of control

The Career Locus of Control Scale (Millar & Shevlin, 2007) measures locus of control in the domain of career choice. The scale has four subscales including internality, helplessness, luck (chance), and powerful others. A 6-point Likert-type scale of agreement–disagreement anchored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) was used. The Career Locus of Control Scale measures the extent to which individuals perceive their career success as dependent on internal or external factors. The career specific locus of control comprises four subscales of luck, helplessness, powerful others, and internality. Luck refers to the belief regarding how much luck and chance would affect career opportunities and outcomes. Helplessness refers to the degree of feeling out of control over career-related outcomes. Powerful others refer to the effects of powerful individuals (e.g., family, friends, and professional networks) on career decision and opportunities. Finally, internality refers to the degree of people’s belief on how much control they have over their career. These four subscales would directly affect college students’ career decision self-efficacy because individuals decide when they feel that they have control over the decision process. The Cronbach’s α for four subscales were .76 for internality, .82 for luck, .75 for helplessness, and .72 for powerful others (Millar & Shevlin, 2007). In this study, the Cronbach’s αs were .90 (internality), .94 (luck), .89 (helplessness), and .90 (powerful others). The Cronbach’s α for the total score was .89. The correlation with Levenson’s multidimensional locus of control scale (Levenson & Neuringer, 1974) was positive, indicating strong convergent validity.

Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale (CDSE)

The CDSE was developed by Taylor and Betz (1983) to measure the career decision self-efficacy of undergraduate students. The scale includes 50 items with 10 items allocated for each of the following five subscales: (1) self-appraisal, (2) gathering occupational information, (3) goal selection, (4) making plans, and (5) problem-solving. The instrument was originally developed with subjects responding to a 10-point scale ranging from complete confidence (9) to no confidence (0); confidence scores were calculated for each of the five subscales with a maximum score of 50. A total self-efficacy score is calculated by adding the ratings for the 50 items with a maximum score of 250. Higher scores indicate greater confidence. Acceptable levels of reliability have been reported for each subscale (self-appraisal α = .88, gathering occupational information α = .89, goal selection α = .87, planning α = .89, and problem-solving α = .86) and for the scale as a whole (α = .97; Taylor & Betz, 1983). In this study, Cronbach’s α was .90, .85, .89, and .90 for each subscale, and .89 for the total score. Evidence of convergent validity has been reported in terms of correlations with measures of career indecision (r’s −.38 to −.59) and career decidedness (r’s .32 to .55: Taylor & Pompa, 1990).

Results

Upon completion of the data screening process, correlational analyses were performed to examine the general relationships among variables (Table 1). All correlations among the predictor variables were below .80, indicating minimal likelihood that any multicollinearity problem existed among the variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

Table 1.
Zero-Order Pearson Correlation Among Variables.

Variable M Standard Deviation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Gender — .06 −.08 −.01 −.26** −.12 −.06 −.12 −.06

2. Class — .03 .07 .01 .11 .18* −.25 .03

3. Classism 3.98 1.84 — .13 .13 .23 .23 −.26 −.30

4. Sexism 2.96 0.51 — .22 .23 .30 −.11 −.28

5. Luck 2.69 1.29 — −.64 .64 −.02 −.27

6. Helplessness 2.12 1.10 — .71 −.36 −.20*

7. Powerful 2.19 1.01 — −.28 −.23

8. Internality 4.91 1.00 — .24**

9. Career decision self-efficacy 3.70 0.72

Note. N = 139.

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

We used three separate MANOVAs to identify differences in terms of sex, annual household income, and education level in this study. A significant difference was found for sex, F(7, 130) = 2.60, p < .05; however, the effect sizes were minimal (i.e., .12; Cohen, 1992). A significant difference for household annual income level was also detected, F(7, 129) = 1.93, p < .05, but the effect size was very minimal at less than .10. Finally, a significant difference based on education level was determined, F(7, 126) = 2.15, p < .05, but the effect size was .10. We provided tables for differences based on gender, income level, and education level in the Appendix.

To evaluate the predictors of college students’ career decision self-efficacy, a hierarchical regression was performed wherein sex and SES were entered in the first step, followed by classism, modern sexism, and four subscales of locus of control in the second step. The first step was not significant, R = .07, R ² = .00, F(2, 136) = .30, p > .05 (Table 2). The Step 2 equation explained 24% of the variance, R = .49, R ² = .24, F(8, 130) = 5.09 p = .000, ΔR² = .24. Based on significant standardized β weights, (a) both sex and SES were not significant in Step 1 and (b) classism (β = −.23), modern sexism (β = −.20), luck (β = −.31), and internality (β = .22) contributed uniquely to career decision self-efficacy after controlling for the variance accounted for by sex and SES. Helplessness and powerful others were not significant. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was not supported while Hypothesis 2 was partially supported.

Table 2.
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting the Career Decision Self-Efficacy.

Variable B SE B β

Step 1

Sex −.09 –.13 –.06

SES .02 .05 .03

Step 2

Sex –.17 –.12 –.12

SES .06 .05 .09

Classism –.09 .03 –.23*

Modern sexism –.28 .11 –.20

Luck –.18 .06 –.31

Helplessness .09 .10 .14

Powerful others .09 .10 .14

Internality .16 .07 .22*

Note. N = 139. SES = socioeconomic status.

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

Discussion

This study examined sex, SES, classism, modern sexism, and locus of control as factors contributing uniquely to college students’ career decision self-efficacy. Results supported the hypothesis that classism and modern sexism contributed negatively and uniquely to college students’ career decision self-efficacy after controlling for variance that accounted for by sex and SES. Two subscales of locus of control, luck and internality, also contributed uniquely to career decision self-efficacy. However, sex and SES did not predict career decision self-efficacy.

The results of this study showed that classism and modern sexism negatively predict career decision self-efficacy above and beyond the effect of sex and SES. Previous empirical studies found that students who perceived more discrimination and difficulties in obtaining economic resources, social power, and prestige reported lower levels of confidence in accomplishing career decision-making tasks (Ali et al., 2005; Thompson & Subich, 2006). This study confirms the importance of individuals’ classism and modern sexism, as factors affecting career decision self-efficacy, although classism and sexism are outcomes of inequality derived from contextual supports or barriers based on their class and sex. The effects of sex and SES were not statistically significant whereas classism and modern sexism were strongly associated with career decision self-efficacy; hence, the individuals’ perception of discrimination based on socialization due to one’s sex and class appears to be more significant than the individuals’ actual sex and class in relation to career decision self-efficacy.

The SCCT conceptualized that contextual factors are responsible for shaping perceived barriers and opportunities for career development and examined the variables that lead to the development of career interests and choices. Using the SCCT framework, this result highlights the psychological and social effects of SES and sex (e.g., classism and sexism) because it emphasizes accessibility of resources and socialization based on sex and SES rather than SES and sex per se (Lent, 2005). The results of this study expanded the SCCT model by emphasizing the importance of classism and modern sexism over individuals’ actual sex and SES, although classism and modern sexism are derived from inequality they have experienced in their actual lives, not cognitive biases. Thus, the more college students perceive hindrances in career choices and advancement based on their SES and sex, the less career decision self-efficacy they perceived. Previous research supported the notion that the experience of classism is not related to a specific socioeconomic class. For example, the qualitative study by Lapour and Heppner (2009) demonstrated that White female adolescents from the upper middle and upper classes perceived very limited number of career options by circumscribing their career aspiration to live up to expectations. Thus, regardless of one’s own objective SES, perceived barriers based on class may create oppression in one’s career choice and affect an individual’s career decision self-efficacy.

Understanding the effect of classism and modern sexism on a client’s life is essential for career counselors. The results of this study suggest that a practitioner might seek a more in-depth understanding of the unique ways that an individual experiences classism and modern sexism and the effects of such experiences on their career decision-making process. Particularly, given the consideration that the current study’s participants were college students, the practitioners need to address how the contextual factors, such as college and family environments, operate as supports or barriers within students life. Since both classism and sexism are experienced in interpersonal and sociocultural contexts, it is important to understand how the current contexts impact their perceived classism and modern sexism that lead to their career decision-making process.

For example, student clients may be affected by others (e.g., peers, professors, or staffs) who mocked them by labeling them as lazy and unambitious based on the bias toward their lower socioeconomic background or they may experience jealousy and a feeling of inferiority toward colleagues or friends who take the wealthy background for granted and look successful. It is important for practitioners to be aware that their perceived classism and sexism reflect their real-life experiences and validate their perceived inequality while helping them to have power and control to change their situations. Thus, the findings of this study can be used to develop and implement evidence-based intervention programs to address classism’s effects on career-related problems by including assessment and intervention plans for the effects of classism and sexism on a clients’ career decision-making process. Also, it might be important to provide organizational support to compensate for the inequality individuals experience in terms of supports and resources in career development.

However, classism and modern sexism accounted for a relatively small amount of variance in career decision self-efficacy possibly because of the unconscious or conscious denial of sexism and classism. We measured modern sexism and classism based on participants’ self-reports, and hence, future research is needed to measure subtle attitudes or perceptions within an experimental setting, such as the implicit association test. Another explanation could be that both sexism and classism might indirectly affect career decision self-efficacy via other mediating variables such as identity development status or social support (Walpole, 2003). Thus, further studies examining possible mediators of the association between sexism and classism and career-related outcomes might be necessary. Specifically, the recently introduced theory, the psychology of working theory (Duffy et al., 2016), could be a useful framework to examine empirically how the intersectionality and the complexities of multiple social identities influence decent work and its outcomes, such as work fulfillment and well-being.

Remarkably, luck and internality predicted career decision self-efficacy after controlling variances accounted for by sex and SES. Such results suggest that an individuals’ internal locus of control has a significant positive effect on his or her career decision self-efficacy. Meanwhile, if individuals perceive luck as an important factor affecting career development, luck would still have a significant negative effect on career decision self-efficacy, along with the negative effect of classism and modern sexism. The results of this study confirm the previous findings that sense of control is strongly related to higher degree of career decision self-efficacy (Luzzo, Funk, & Strang, 1996), career competency (Daniels, Clifton, Perry, Mandzuk, & Hall, 2006), and career adaptability (Duffy, 2010). Therefore, practitioners working with a college student who has difficulty making career decisions because of his or her social economic status or sex can assist the client toward a stronger sense of internal locus of control as a means of increasing the client’s career decision self-efficacy.

The findings of this study also indicate that helplessness and powerful others were not significant predictors of career decision self-efficacy. Although Millar and Shevlin developed the Career Locus of Control Scale in 2007, most studies using the scale focused on validating the measurement and only a few used the scale in predicting career-related outcomes. Even with those studies, the scale was used either as a total score (Starica, 2012) or summed as internal versus external locus of control (Migunde, Othuon, & Mbagaya, 2015), although the scale was originally developed to be used as one of the four subscales of internality, helplessness, luck, and powerful others. Hence, it is possible that both helplessness and powerful others function as parts of external locus of control (along with luck subscale); and luck might have the biggest variance among them.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, we measured SES based on income level, but SES can be measured using other dimensions such as wealth, parents’ occupation, educational attainment, occupation, and area/contextual-level measures (American Psychological Association Task Force on SES, 2007). Second, issues with self-serving bias could exist when answering questions, especially those related to classism and sexism. Third, our study was conducted with college students from the Southern and Eastern United States, and for the generalization of the findings, further studies with different cultural contexts are necessary. Finally, this study did not examine the potential interaction effects among sexism, classism, and locus of control. More sophisticated statistical analyses will be required to examine how SES, sex/gender, race/ethnicity, and other social identities interact with locus of control in a synergistic way to affect the career decision-making process.

Notwithstanding these limitations, the current study contributed to further understanding the effects of sexism and classism on career decision self-efficacy along with the effects of actual SES and sex. Specifically, the findings of this study expanded the SCCT model by showing the significant effect of classism and modern sexism on career decision self-efficacy via sense of control over actual sex and SES. This study showed the importance of environment in developing self-efficacy rather than considering self-efficacy in individual level.

Variable	M	Standard Deviation	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Gender			—	.06	−.08	−.01	−.26**	−.12	−.06	−.12	−.06
2. Class				—	.03	.07	.01	.11	.18*	−.25**	.03
3. Classism	3.98	1.84			—	.13	.13	.23**	.23**	−.26**	−.30**
4. Sexism	2.96	0.51				—	.22**	.23**	.30**	−.11	−.28**
5. Luck	2.69	1.29					—	−.64**	.64**	−.02	−.27**
6. Helplessness	2.12	1.10						—	.71**	−.36**	−.20*
7. Powerful	2.19	1.01							—	−.28**	−.23**
8. Internality	4.91	1.00								—	.24**
9. Career decision self-efficacy	3.70	0.72

Variable	B	SE B	β
Step 1
Sex	−.09	–.13	–.06
SES	.02	.05	.03
Step 2
Sex	–.17	–.12	–.12
SES	.06	.05	.09
Classism	–.09	.03	–.23*
Modern sexism	–.28	.11	–.20**
Luck	–.18	.06	–.31**
Helplessness	.09	.10	.14
Powerful others	.09	.10	.14
Internality	.16	.07	.22*

Footnotes

Appendix

Table A3.

Means, Standard Deviations (SDs), and F Ratios for Education Level (N = 139).

Variable	1	2	3	4	F(7, 130)	F(7, 130)
1. Classism						1.35
M	4.08	3.09	4.01	4.33	3.78
SD	2.66	0.74	0.93	0.88	0.19
2. Modern sexism						2.05
M	2.99	2.92	2.90	2.77	3.17
SD	0.55	0.50	0.51	0.53	0.40
3. Luck						2.03
M	2.64	3.44	2.70	2.70	2.22
SD	1.41	1.43	1.37	1.18	0.75
4. Helplessness						3.33*
M	2.51	1.74	2.03	2.13	1.85
SD	1,41	0.51	0.88	0.98	0.76
5. Powerful others						1.46
M	2.42	2.23	2.11	2.10	1.83
SD	1.33	0.97	0.71	0.80	0.65
6. Locus of control						1.02
M	3.02	3.11	2.97	2.90	2.71
SD	.0.96	0.61	0.64	0.57	0.41
7. CDSE						0.59
M	3.64	3.72	3.58	3.79	3.85
SD	0.66	0.74	0.93	0.88	0.19

Note. 1 = freshman, 2 = sophomore, 3 = junior, 4 = senior, and 5 = fifth. CDSE = Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale.

*p < .05.

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 Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund of 2016.

References

Akrami

Ekehammar

Araya

(2000). Classical and modern racial prejudice: A study of attitudes toward immigrants in Sweden. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 521–532.

Ali

S. R.

McWhirter

E. H.

Chronister

K. M.

(2005). Self-efficacy and vocational outcome occupations for adolescents of lower socioeconomic status: A pilot study. Journal of Career Assessment, 13, 40–58.

Ali

S. R.

Saunders

J. L.

(2009). The career aspirations of rural Appalachian high school students. Journal of Career Assessment, 17, 172–188.

American Psychological Association Task Force on Socioeconomic Status. (2007). Report of APA task force on socioeconomic status. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/task-force-2006.pdf

Bandura

(1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of social and clinical psychology, 4, 359–373.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Bandura

(2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.

Betz

N. E.

Hackett

(1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations to perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of counseling psychology, 28, 399–410.

Blustein

D. L.

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

10.

Bombuwela

P. M.

Chamaru

D. A. A.

(2013). Effects of glass ceiling on women career development in private sector organizations-case of Sri Lanka. Journal of Competitiveness, 5, 3–19.

11.

Brown

M. T.

(2004). The career development influence of family of origin considerations of race/ethnic group membership and class. The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 587–595.

12.

Cellini

J. V.

Kantorowski

L. A.

(1984). Locus of control and career decidedness: Some methodological notes. Psychological Reports, 55, 613–614.

13.

Chaves

A. P.

Diemer

M. A.

Blustein

D. L.

Gallagher

L. A.

DeVoy

J. E.

Casares

M. T.

Perry

J. C.

(2004). Conceptions of work: The view from urban youth. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 275–286.

14.

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.

15.

Daniels

L. M.

Clifton

R. A.

Perry

R. P.

Mandzuk

Hall

N. C.

(2006). Predicting student teachers’ competence and career uncertainty: The role of career anxiety and perceived control. Social Psychology of Education, 9, 405–423.

16.

Davies-Netzley

S. A.

(1998). Women above the glass ceiling: Perceptions on corporate mobility and strategies for success. Gender & Society, 12, 339–355.

17.

Diemer

M. A.

Rasheed Ali

(2009). Integrating social class into vocational psychology: Scholarly and practice implications. Journal of Career Assessment, 17, 247–265.

18.

Duffy

R. D.

(2010). Sense of control and career adaptability among undergraduate students. Journal of Career Assessment, 18, 420–430.

19.

Duffy

R. D.

Blustein

D. L.

Diemer

M. A.

Autin

K. L.

(2016). The psychology of working theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63, 127–148.

20.

Eagly

A. H.

Karau

S. J.

(2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Reviews, 109, 573–598.

21.

Ekehammar

Akrami

Araya

(2000). Development and validation of Swedish classical and modern sexism scales. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41, 307–314.

22.

Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. (2012). The glass ceiling commission. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

23.

Flores

L. Y.

Navarro

R. L.

Ali

S. R.

(2016). The State of SCCT research in relation to social class future directions. Journal of Career Assessment. doi:10.1177/1069072716658649

24.

Fouad

N. A.

Brown

M. T.

(2000). The role of race and class in development: Implications for counseling psychology. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd ed., pp. 379–408). New York, NY: John Wiley.

25.

Fouad

N. A.

Singh

Cappaert

Chang

W.-H.

Wan

(2016). Comparison of women engineers who persist in or depart from engineering. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92, 79–93.

26.

Gifford

D. D.

Criceno-Perriott

Mianzo

(2006). Locus of control: academic achievement and retention in a sample of university first-year students. Journal of College Admission, 191, 18–25.

27.

Gordon

V. N.

Steele

G. E.

(2015). The undecided college student: An academic and career advising challenge. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

28.

Hackett

Betz

N. E.

(1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 326–339.

29.

Heilman

M. E.

Block

C. J.

Martell

R. F.

(1995). Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 237–252.

30.

Heppner

M. J.

Jung

A. K.

(2013). Gender and social class: Powerful predictors of a life journey. In Walsh

Hartung

Savickas

(Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology (4th ed., pp. 81–102). New York, NY: Routledge.

31.

Howard

K. A. S.

Carlstrom

A. H.

Katz

A. D.

Chew

A. Y.

Ray

Laine

Caulum

(2011). Career aspirations of youth: Untangling race/ethnicity, SES, and gender. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 98–109.

32.

Huang

J.-T.

Hsieh

H.-H.

(2011). Linking socioeconomic status to social cognitive career theory factors: A partial least squares path modeling analysis. Journal of Career Assessment, 19, 452–461.

33.

Judge

T. A.

Bono

J. E.

(2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—Self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—With job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of applied Psychology, 86, 80.

34.

Koch

S. C.

Konigorski

Sieverding

(2014). Sexist behavior undermines women’ performance in a job application situation. Sex Role, 70, 79–87.

35.

Langhout

R. D.

Rosselli

Feinstein

(2007). Assessing classism in academic settings. The Review of Higher Education, 30, 145–184.

36.

Lapan

R. T.

Boggs

K. R.

Morrill

W. H.

(1989). Self-efficacy as a mediator of investigative and realistic general occupational themes on the Strong–Campbell Interest Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 176–182.

37.

Lapour

A. S.

Heppner

M. J.

(2009). Social class privilege and adolescent women’s perceived career options. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 477–494.

38.

Lease

S. H.

(2004). Effect of locus of control, work knowledge, and mentoring on career decision making difficulties: Testing the role of race and academic institution. Journal of Career Assessment, 12, 239–254.

39.

Lent

R. W.

(2005). A social cognitive view of career development and counseling. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 101–127). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

40.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of vocational behavior, 45, 79–122.

41.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 36–49.

42.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(2002). Social cognitive career theory. Career choice and development, 4, 255–311.

43.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Schmidt

Brenner

Lyons

Treistman

(2003). Relation of contextual supports and barriers to choice behavior in engineering majors: Test of alternative social cognitive models. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 458–465.

44.

Levenson

Neuringer

(1974). Suicide and field dependency. OMEGA-Journal of Death and Dying, 5, 181–186.

45.

Liu

W. M.

(2001). Expanding our understanding of multiculturalism: Developing a social class worldview model: The interaction of race, class, and gender in counseling psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

46.

Liu

W. M.

(2011). Social class and classism in the helping professionals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

47.

Liu

W. M.

Soleck

Hopps

Dunston

Pickett

(2004). A new framework to understand social class in counseling: The social class worldview model and modern classism theory. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32, 95–122.

48.

Luzzo

D. A.

(1993). Ethnic differences in college students’ perceptions of barriers to career development. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 21, 227–236.

49.

Luzzo

D. A.

Funk

D. P.

Strang

(1996). Attributional retraining increases career decision-making self-efficacy. The Career Development Quarterly, 44, 478–486.

50.

Migunde

Othuon

Mbagaya

(2015). Gender differences in the predictors of career indecision of secondary school students in Kenya. International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management Sciences, 4, 210–218.

51.

Millar

Shevlin

(2007). The development and factor structure of a career locus of control scale for use with school pupils. Journal of Career Development, 33, 224–249.

52.

Ostrove

J. M.

(2003). Belonging and wanting: Meanings of social class background for women’s constructions of their college experiences. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 771–784.

53.

Powers

R. S.

Wojtkiewicz

R. A.

(2004). Occupational aspirations, gender, and educational attainment. Sociological Spectrum, 24, 601–622.

54.

Reskin

B. F.

Ross

C. E.

(1995). Jos, authority, and earnings among managers: The continuing significance of sex, gender inequality at work. In Jacobs

J. A.

(Eds.), Gender inequality at work (pp. 127–151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

55.

Ritz

S. F.

Hyers

L. L.

(2005, 8). The stigma of poverty: The nature and implications of everyday classism. Poster presented during the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

56.

Rotter

J. B.

(1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80, 1–28.

57.

Smith

Foley

P. F.

Chaney

M. P.

(2008). Addressing classism, ableism, and heterosexism in counselor education. Journal of Counseling and Development, 86, 303–309.

58.

Starica

E. C.

(2012). Predictors for career indecision in adolescence. Social and Behavioral Science, 33, 168–172.

59.

Sue

D. W.

(2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

60.

Swim

J. K.

Cohen

L. L.

(1997). Overt, covert, and subtle sexism: A comparison between the attitudes toward women and modern sexism scales. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 103–118.

61.

Swim

J. K.

Cohen

L. L.

Hyers

L. L.

(1998). Experiencing everyday prejudice and discrimination. In Swim

J. K.

Stangor

(Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 37–60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

62.

Swim

J. K.

Mallett

Stangor

(2004). Understanding subtle sexism: Detection and use of sexist language. Sex Roles, 51, 117–128.

63.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

64.

Taylor

K. M.

Betz

N. E.

(1983). Application of self-efficacy theory to the understanding and treatment of career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 63–81.

65.

Taylor

K. M.

Popma

(1990). An examination of the relationships among career decision-making self-efficacy, career salience, locus of control, and vocational indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 17–31.

66.

Thompson

M. N.

Subich

L. M.

(2006). The relation of social status to the career decision-making process. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 289–301.

67.

Thompson

M. N.

Subich

L. M.

(2011). Social status identity: Antecedents and vocational outcomes. The Counseling Psychologist, 39, 735–763.

68.

Thompson

M. N.

Subich

L. M.

(2013). Development and exploration of the experiences with classism scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 21, 139–158.

69.

U.S. Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters. (2011, 10). Gender pay differences: Progress made, but women remain overrepresented among low-wage workers. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1210.pdf

70.

Walpole

(2003). Socioeconomic status and college: How SES affects college experiences and outcomes. The Review of Higher Education, 27, 45–73.

71.

Worthington

R. L.

Flores

L. Y.

Navarro

R. M.

(2005). Career development in context: Research with people of color. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Career development counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 225–252). New York, NY: John Wiley.