The Joint Roles of Career Decision Self-Efficacy and Personality Traits in the Prediction of Career Decidedness and Decisional Difficulty

Abstract

We examined the differential roles that career decision-making self-efficacy and the Big Five traits of neuroticism, extroversion, and conscientiousness may play in relation to career decision status and decisional difficulty. Following assumptions of the social cognitive model of career self-management, we hypothesized that the relations of the personality traits to level of decidedness and choice/commitment anxiety (CCA), a key source of indecision, would be mediated by self-efficacy. We also examined the possibility that the traits could function to moderate the relation of self-efficacy to the dependent variables. Employing a sample of 182 undergraduates, we found support for a mediational model in which each of the personality traits relates to self-efficacy which, in turn, predicts CCA and decidedness. In addition, conscientiousness was found to moderate the relation of career decision-making self-efficacy to CCA, and extroversion moderated the relation of self-efficacy to decidedness. We consider the findings in relation to the social cognitive model and discuss their implications for future research and career decision-making interventions.

Keywords

career decision-making self-efficacy Big Five traits career indecision

The sources, measurement, and remediation of career indecision have long attracted the attention of vocational psychologists (e.g., Brown & Rector, 2008; Crites, 1969; Gati, Krausz, & Osipow, 1996; Rounds & Tinsley, 1984). In recent years, several important advances have been made in the study and understanding of career indecision, which can be defined simply as the experience of difficulty in arriving at career-related decisions. For example, though many individual variables have been found to relate to career indecision, using meta-analysis and factor analysis, Brown and his colleagues have recently identified four common sources of career indecision (Brown et al., 2012; Brown & Rector, 2008). A second important development has been the study of personality factors in relation to career indecision (Martincin & Stead, 2015), based on the assumption that stable person factors are implicated in decisional difficulties. A third development has been the meta-analytic finding that career indecision is strongly, inversely related to career decision self-efficacy (Choi et al., 2012), with more confident decision-makers being likely to report that they are less undecided (or more decided) about their career path.

Although these advances in studying the bases and correlates of career indecision are all notable in their own right, an important question is whether and how they may be assembled together to form a more theoretically cohesive picture of career indecision. In particular, do personality and self-efficacy play similar, different, or complementary roles in relation to career indecision? If they play different or complementary roles, how do they function together in the decisional process? Does the nature of their joint roles depend on the source or type of career indecision? In this study, we use the new social cognitive model of career self-management (CSM; Lent & Brown, 2013) as a basis for testing one way in which in which personality and self-efficacy may function together: self-efficacy may mediate, at least in part, the relation of Big Five personality traits to a primary source of indecision, choice/commitment anxiety (CCA; Brown et al., 2012) as well as to overall level of career decidedness. We also tested a second possibility that is not derived directly the CSM model: that particular traits may moderate (i.e., affect the strength of) the relation of self-efficacy to decidedness and CCA.

Personality and Self-Efficacy as Predictors of Career Decision Problems

Personality traits are thinking, feeling, or behaving tendencies that are typically considered as shaped in part by biology (McCrae et al., 2000) and as relatively stable across time and situation, though some allowance is made for change in personality traits (e.g., Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005). Five major traits have been found to comprise the basic dimensions of normal personality, and three of these Big Five traits (neuroticism, extroversion, and conscientiousness), in particular, have been reliably linked to a variety of career development outcomes, such as levels of career decidedness (Brown & Hirschi, 2013), and decisional problems or indecision (Martincin & Stead, 2015; Page, Bruch, & Haase, 2008). The other two Big Five traits, agreeableness and openness, have tended to yield less consistent relations with decisional outcomes (Brown & Hirschi, 2013; Martincin & Stead, 2015).

Neuroticism, referring to a lack of positive adjustment and emotional stability, is associated with a wide array of negative emotions; extroversion is associated with being active, energetic, gregarious, and assertive as well as a tendency to experience positive emotionality (Brown & Hirschi, 2013). Conscientiousness is characterized by tendencies toward goal-directed, persistent, self-disciplined, careful, deliberate, and organized behavior (Brown & Hirschi, 2013). Indecision has been found to be related positively to neuroticism (e.g., Di Fabio, Palazzeschi, Levin, & Gati, 2015; Feldt et al., 2011; Hirschi & Hermann, 2013; Tokar, Fischer, & Subich, 1998) and negatively to extroversion (Di Fabio et al., 2015; Feldt et al., 2011; Hirschi & Hermann, 2013) and conscientiousness (Feldt et al., 2011; Hirschi & Hermann, 2013). That is, the more neuroticism and the less extroversion and conscientiousness, the greater the likelihood of reporting career indecision. Neuroticism likely operates mainly via affective and cognitive channels, with those experiencing high levels of neuroticism or emotional instability being more likely to approach major decisions with anxiety and to second-guess their choices. Meanwhile, the positive affectivity and social behaviors associated with extroversion, and the planfulness and persistence aspects of conscientiousness, may aid the decisional process.

The construct of self-efficacy, based in social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), involves individuals’ beliefs about their ability to perform particular behaviors. Following Bandura’s lead, the various models that comprise social cognitive career theory define self-efficacy (and other social cognitive variables) in relation to the specific behavioral domain or tasks under study (Lent & Brown, 2006). Career decision self-efficacy refers to personal beliefs about one’s ability to navigate the activities involved in making career decisions, such as gathering occupational information and selecting goals (Taylor & Betz, 1983). Many studies have reported an inverse relationship between career decision-making self-efficacy and career indecision (e.g., Betz & Luzzo, 1996). In a recent meta-analysis, Choi et al. (2012) reported a weighted average r of -.52 between career decision-making self-efficacy and career indecision. Career decision self-efficacy is assumed to help people organize and deploy decisional skills, experience less decisional anxiety, and persist at career exploration and decision-making tasks.

Because career decision self-efficacy and the three Big Five traits are assumed to operate on career indecision via similar or overlapping mechanisms (e.g., self-efficacy and conscientious both aid task organization and persistence; self-efficacy, neuroticism, and extroversion all affect decisional comfort), it is natural to wonder how and to what extent they relate to one another as well as to career indecision and decidedness. Indeed, career decision self-efficacy has been found to yield small to moderate, positive relations with extroversion and conscientiousness, and negative relations with neuroticism (Hartman & Betz, 2007; Page et al., 2008; Rogers, Creed, & Glendon, 2008; Wang, Jome, Haase, & Bruch, 2006). Examining career decision self-efficacy and personality traits together in relation to decisional outcomes, Lent, Ezeofor, Morrison, Penn, and Ireland (2016) found that self-efficacy fully mediated the relationship of conscientiousness to career decidedness and decisional anxiety. Wang, Jome, Haase, and Bruch (2006) reported that self-efficacy fully mediated the relation of extroversion to career choice commitment in a sample of white students and partially mediated the relations of neuroticism and extroversion to career choice commitment in a sample of students of color.

Social Cognitive Model of CSM

The social cognitive model of CSM (Lent & Brown, 2013) views career decision-making as a key adaptive career behavior and offers a framework for integrating personality and social cognitive influences on decisional outcomes. Figure 1 shows the general model of CSM, and Figure 2 highlights the more specific ways in which neuroticism, extroversion, and conscientiousness are expected to relate to self-efficacy and decisional outcomes, such as level of decidedness and indecision. As distal and general response tendencies, the personality traits help to shape the acquisition of decision-making self-efficacy beliefs (Path a). For example, those with conscientious tendencies are likely to develop favorable career decision self-efficacy because they have seen themselves tackle earlier decisions in an organized and persistent fashion, whereas tendencies toward neuroticism (or extroversion) may have inclined people to face prior decisions with worry (or calm), leading to diminished (or enhanced) self-efficacy. These traits may also have an impact on how people attend to, encode, and recall the efficacy-based learning experiences to which they have been exposed.

Figure 1.

Model of career self-management.

Figure 2.

Conceptual model showing three means by which personality traits may relate to career indecision and decidedness.

Career decision self-efficacy is expected to mediate, at least in part, the relations of the personality traits to career decidedness and decisional difficulties (Paths a and b). Part of the relationship of the traits (especially neuroticism and extroversion) to the decisional criteria is also expected to be direct (Path c). Another possibility is that the traits may affect, or moderate, the strength of self-efficacy’s relation to the decisional criteria (Path d). For example, self-efficacy may better predict decidedness when people also have higher levels of conscientiousness and extroversion and lower levels of neuroticism. These moderator possibilities are not, strictly speaking, derived from the self-management model and, therefore, represent a more exploratory part of this study. The moderator role does not appear to have received much prior inquiry. In one relevant study, though, Solberg, Good, Fischer, Brown, and Nord (1995) found that human agency (a personality variable) did not significantly moderate the relation of career search self-efficacy (which is conceptually similar to career decision self-efficacy) to two decisional criteria.

In terms of the decisional criteria in our study, we focused on one prominent form or source of career indecision, CCA, and current level of decidedness. Hacker, Carr, Abrams, and Brown (2013) found that, among four common sources of career indecision, CCA produced the largest correlation with level of career decidedness. This indecision source reflects both developmental and chronic aspects of decision-making difficulty, such as having trouble selecting among choice options, needing more information to reach a decision, and experiencing decisional anxiety. We will hereafter use the terms, decisional discomfort and CCA, interchangeably.

Parenthetically, people can feel ambivalent or anxious about committing to a decision but still consider themselves as decided, at least for the time being. For example, many college students declare an academic major without being fully committed to it. This provisional decision may or may not become a stable choice, depending on subsequent experiences. Thus, we view decisional discomfort as a reflection of one’s process in arriving at a decision, whereas decidedness reflects one’s current decisional status, despite lingering uncertainties. Although conceptually distinct, the two are expected to relate to one another inversely (e.g., because ambivalence makes it more difficult to reach a state of decidedness), an expectation that is consistent with prior findings (Hacker, Carr, Abrams, & Brown, 2013).

In sum, the present study was designed to build on recent theory and prior research in examining three ways in which personality traits and self-efficacy may function together within the career decision-making process: (a) The relation of traits to decisional criteria may be mediated by self-efficacy, (b) traits may yield direct paths to decisional criteria, apart from any indirect relations via self-efficacy, and (c) traits may moderate the relation of self-efficacy to decisional criteria. These three modes of operation are not necessarily exclusive of one another; it is possible that they function simultaneously or that particular traits operate via different pathways. Our design, therefore, examined each of the three Big Five traits in relation to each of the three pathways.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants were 182 undergraduates who were enrolled in psychology courses at a Mid-Atlantic University. The sample was mostly female (80%), with a mean age of 19.88 years (SD = 1.65). Fifty-five percent of the sample identified as European American/White; 16% as Asian American/Pacific Islander, 9% as African American/Black, 8% as Hispanic/Latino/a, 6% as multiracial, and 6% indicated “other” racial/ethnic identities. In terms of class year, 25% were freshmen, 32% sophomores, 24% juniors, 16% seniors, and 3% in their fifth year or beyond. Psychology was the most frequently endorsed academic major in the sample.

The students were recruited through an online research sign-up system in the university’s psychology department and they received course credit for their participation in the study. After completing an informed consent form, they took all measures and demographic questions online. To avoid missing data, the survey required completion of each item before moving on to the next one, though participants were informed that they could close their browsers at any time if they did not wish to complete the entire survey. Fourteen participants closed their browsers before completing the survey and their data were omitted from analyses.

Measures

Career decision self-efficacy

Betz, Klein, and Taylor (1996) developed the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale–Short Form, which assesses beliefs in being able to successfully complete five types of tasks involved in the career decision process: making accurate self-appraisal, gathering occupational information, selecting a goal, making plans to implement the decision, and problem-solving. Its 25 items were originally rated along a 10-point Likert-type scale, though 5-point scaling has subsequently been used (1 = no confidence at all, 5 = complete confidence; Betz, Hammond, & Multon, 2005). A sample item is: “How much confidence do you have in your ability to develop a clear understanding of your work-related skills?” Scale scores are calculated by totaling the item scores and dividing by 25, producing a 1–5 continuum. Higher scores reflect a greater degree of career decision self-efficacy. One item (“Find information in the library about occupations you are interested in”) was updated by adding the phrase “or Internet.” Betz, Hammond, and Multon (2005) reported internal consistency estimates of .94–.95 for the total scale. They also found that the total score relates strongly and negatively with career indecision and moderately-to-strongly and positively with measures of vocational identity, decisional comfort, and decidedness. The coefficient α estimate in the current study was .92.

Five-factor traits

The extroversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism subscales of the Big Five Mini-Markers Scales (Saucier, 1994) were used to assess personality traits. Participants are asked to rate the extent to which they identify with adjectives associated with each trait. Ratings are made along a 9-point Likert-type scale, 1 = extremely inaccurate to 9 = extremely accurate. The extroversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism subscales each contain 8 items. Sample items from each subscale are as follows: neuroticism, “envious” and “relaxed” (both reverse scored); extroversion, “bold” and “bashful” (reverse scored); and conscientiousness, “systematic” and “careless” (reverse scored). Scores for each trait are calculated by summing its items and dividing by 8. Higher scores imply a stronger expression of the trait.

Saucier (1994) reported coefficient α estimates for the neuroticism, extroversion, and conscientiousness subscales, respectively, of .76, .85, and .86. In terms of convergent validity, Palmer and Loveland (2004) found large correlations between corresponding traits on the Big Five Mini-Markers and the Big Five Questionnaire, another instrument used to measure the Big Five traits. They also found that the Mini-Markers subscales correlated with measures of life satisfaction and emotional intelligence to a degree similar to the corresponding subscales of the Big Five Questionnaire. The internal reliability coefficients of the subscale scores in the current study were .79 for neuroticism, .89 for extroversion, and .87 for conscientiousness.

Decisional discomfort

The CCA subscale of the Career Indecision Profile 65 (CIP-65; Hacker et al., 2013) was used to measure discomfort with the career decision process. The CCA subscale contains 24 items that encompass need for occupational information, need for self-information, approach–approach conflict, choice anxiety and discouragement, and inability to commit to a career choice. Sample items include “I often feel nervous when thinking about having to pick a career” and “I am uncomfortable committing myself to a specific career direction.” Participants are asked to indicate on a 6-point Likert-type scale (from strongly disagree to strongly agree), the degree to which each item applies to them. Scale scores are determined by totaling the item scores and dividing by 24, with higher scores reflecting greater difficulty in making a career decision.

The CCA is one of the four scales of the CIP-65, each of which reflects a common type of career indecision and is patterned closely after items used on prior, well-validated measures of career indecision. Strong internal consistency reliability estimates have been reported for the CCA in United States (α = .96, Brown et al., 2012; α = .97, Hacker et al., 2013) and international (α = .95, Abrams et al., 2013; α = .94, Carr et al., 2014) college-age samples. Hacker et al. (2013) found support for the factor structure of the CCA and the other CIP-65 Scales (neuroticism/negative affectivity, lack of readiness, and interpersonal conflicts) and also reported that, among the CIP scales, CCA produced the largest correlation with a measure of career decidedness (r = −.71); the range of correlations of decidedness with the other CIP-65 Scales was −.24 to −.38. The internal reliability coefficient for CCA scores in the current study was .96.

Career decidedness

Level of career decidedness, or career decision status, was measured with 3 items adapted from prior, brief measures of this construct. These included a decidedness item adapted from Hacker et al. (2013) in their validation of the CIP-65 (“How decided about your overall career direction are you at this point in time?”). Participants respond to this item on a 6-point scale, from 1 (completely undecided) to 6 (very decided). This item has been found to relate strongly to the CCA (Hacker et al., 2013) as well as moderately to strongly with measures of career decision self-efficacy (Lent, Ezeofor, et al., 2016). We also included 2 items patterned after items on the Career Decision Profile (Jones, 1989): “I have narrowed my career options down to a general occupational field that I intend to enter, for example, engineering, literature, or the social sciences” and “I have decided on a specific occupation or job title that I plan to pursue, for example, computer engineer, writer, or psychologist.” These two items were measured on a 6-point scale, from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree. Responses to all 3 decidedness items were summed and divided by 3, with higher scores implying greater decidedness or choice certainty. The measure produced an internal consistency estimate of .71 in our sample.

Decisional stress

In order to provide additional validity data relative to the CCA and career decidedness measures, we administered Stumpf, Colarelli, and Hartman’s (1983) Decisional Stress Scale. This 4-item measure asks participants to indicate how much undesirable stress they have felt in making career-related decisions. Responses are made along a 7-point scale, from 1 (little) to 7 (a great deal). A sample item is “deciding on what type of work I want to do.” Stumpf et al. (1983) reported internal consistency estimates of .85 in two samples and also found decisional stress to correlate moderately with career exploration stress and career choice clarity. Scale scores are determined by totaling the item scores and dividing by 4, with higher scores reflecting greater stress in dealing with career decisions. We found that decisional stress scores yielded an internal consistency estimate of .84 in our sample and correlated in expected directions with the CCA and decidedness (r = .49 and −.39, respectively). Thus, CCA was strongly, and career decidedness was moderately (and inversely), associated with decisional stress.

Results

Table 1 displays the correlations among the predictor and dependent variables, along with their means, standard deviations, and internal consistency reliability estimates. Career decision self-efficacy produced small (neuroticism) to moderate (extroversion, conscientiousness) correlations with the three personality traits, and moderate correlations with the two decisional criteria, decisional discomfort and level of decidedness. The traits also correlated with one another, with the correlations ranging from small to moderate. Those with higher scores on extroversion and conscientiousness tended to report lower levels of neuroticism, whereas extroversion and conscientiousness scores were positively correlated. With the exception of the relation of neuroticism to decidedness, the trait/decisional criteria relations were statistically significant, ranging from small to medium in magnitude. As expected, the correlation between decisional discomfort and decidedness was negative and large; those reporting more difficulty with the decision-making process were less likely to have arrived at a clear decision.

Table 1.

Correlations, Means, Standard Deviations, and Internal Consistency Estimates.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	M	SD	α
1. CDSE	—						3.57	0.57	.92
2. Extraversion	.33	—					5.81	1.51	.89
3. Neuroticism	−.25	−.20	—				4.45	1.29	.79
4. Conscientiousness	.35	.32	−.32	—			6.68	1.27	.87
5. Decisional discomfort^a	−.47	−.18	.30	−.38	—		3.46	1.08	.96
6. Career decidedness	.40	.15	−.13	.24	−.58	—	4.50	1.08	.71

Note. N = 182. CDSE = career decision self-efficacy; correlations >.15 are significant, p < .05.

^aMeasured with the Choice/Commitment Anxiety Scale of the Career Indecision Profile 65.

We performed a path analysis to examine the joint relations of the personality traits and self-efficacy to the two decisional criteria, as illustrated in Figure 2. The three traits were modeled as covarying predictors of self-efficacy which, in turn, predicted decisional discomfort and decidedness. In addition, the target model included direct (as well as indirect) paths from the traits to the decisional criteria. Thus, self-efficacy was depicted as a partial mediator of trait/criterion relations. We also tested an alternative model in with the traits were related to the decisional criteria only indirectly, via self-efficacy (i.e., without path c in Figure 2). In both models, the discomfort and decidedness error terms were allowed to covary and the potential moderation of self-efficacy/criterion relations by the traits was examined. Moderation was tested by standardizing self-efficacy and trait variable scores and then creating interaction terms by multiplying the standardized self-efficacy and trait scores. Each interaction (self-efficacy × extroversion, self-efficacy × neuroticism, self-efficacy × conscientiousness) was modeled as producing a direct path to the two decisional criteria (i.e., over and above the main effects of each predictor) and the three interaction terms were allowed to covary.

The path analyses employed the Multilevel Modeling (MLM) estimation procedures of Mplus 7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2015). Hu and Bentler (1999) have suggested use of a two-index strategy whereby good model-data fit is reflected by Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) values ≤ .08 along with Comparative Fit Index (CFI) values ≥ .95 or Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values ≤ .06. The indirect effects-only model, in which all trait/outcome relations were mediated by self-efficacy, yielded good fit to the data, SRMR = .06, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .02; Satorra-Bentler (S-B) χ²(18, N = 182) = 19.62, p = .35. The partially mediated target model also fit the data well, SRMR = .05, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00; S-B χ²(12, N = 182) = 6.48, p = .89. Direct comparison of the two models indicated that the partially mediated model offered significantly improved fit, ΔS-B χ²(6) = 19.82, p < .01; ΔCFI = .01.

The significant path coefficients in the partially mediated model are shown in Figure 3. Extroversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness each produced significant direct paths to self-efficacy, which was directly related to decisional discomfort and decidedness. Neuroticism and conscientiousness, but not extroversion (β = .04), also produced significant direct paths to decisional discomfort. However, none of the direct paths from the traits to decidedness were significant (for extroversion, β = .02; for neuroticism, β = −.02); for conscientiousness, β = .11). The model accounted for 19% of the variance in self-efficacy, 20% in decidedness, and 33% in discomfort.

Figure 3.

Path analysis of the joint relations of self-efficacy and personality to decisional discomfort and decidedness.

Although the partially mediated model provided better fit than did the indirect effects-only model, only two of the six direct paths from the traits to the decisional criteria were significant. This suggests that much of the relation of the traits to the criteria was mediated by self-efficacy. To more precisely test the indirect relations of the traits to the criteria via self-efficacy, we ran 5,000 bias-corrected bootstrap samples in Mplus. The results indicated that extroversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness each produced statistically significant indirect paths via self-efficacy to decisional discomfort (respectively, B = −.09, SE = .03, 95% CI [−.16, −.03]; B = .05, SE = .03, 95% CI [.00, .12]; B = −.09, SE = .03, 95% CI [−.17, −.04]) as well as to decidedness (respectively, B = .09, SE = .03, 95% CI [.03, .16]; B = −.05, SE = .03, 95% CI [−.12, −.00]; B = −.09, SE = .03, 95% CI [.03, .16]).

Two of the six interaction terms also contributed significantly to predictions in the partially mediated model, as shown in Figure 3: (a) extroversion moderated the relation of self-efficacy to decidedness and (b) conscientiousness moderated the relation of self-efficacy to discomfort. (Note that, for conceptual and visual convenience, the moderator effects are shown as dashed paths from the traits to self-efficacy/criterion paths. However, as noted above, moderation was operationalized by testing the significance of direct paths from each interaction term to each outcome variable.)

Analysis of the simple slopes revealed that self-efficacy predicted decidedness significantly at high (1 SD above the mean, B = .53, SE = .10, p < .001) and average (B = .38, SE = .08, p < .001), but not at low (1 SD below the mean, B = .23, SE = .13, p > .05) levels of extroversion. As shown in Figure 4, the relation of self-efficacy to decidedness was stronger at higher levels of extroversion. We also graphed the moderation involving conscientiousness (see Figure 5), finding that, though self-efficacy predicted decisional discomfort across levels of conscientiousness, the self-efficacy/discomfort relation was more strongly negative at higher levels of conscientiousness (1 SD above the mean, B = −.54, SE = .09, p < .001) than at average (B = −.39, SE = .08, p < .001) or lower levels (1 SD below the mean, B = −.23, SE = .12, p < .05). The self-efficacy x extroversion interaction (β = .14) explained an additional 2% of the variance in decidedness, whereas the self-efficacy × conscientiousness interaction (β = −.13) accounted for an additional 2% of the variance in decisional discomfort.

Figure 4.

Extroversion as a moderator of the relation of self-efficacy to career decidedness.

Figure 5.

Conscientiousness as a moderator of the relation of self-efficacy to decisional discomfort.

It is important to note that the coefficients on the paths from self-efficacy to decidedness and decisional discomfort in Figure 3 reflect the baseline, or unmoderated, relation of self-efficacy with each dependent variable. These are also depicted by the middle slope in Figures 4 and 5 (i.e., the self-efficacy/criterion relation at the mean level of each moderator). However, these effects are superseded by the significant interaction terms; that is, the self-efficacy/criterion relations depend on the level of the significant moderator variables. The other two slopes in Figures 4 and 5 show how the self-efficacy/criterion relation changes at lower and higher levels of the moderator variable. The indirect pathways from the traits to the criterion variables should also be interpreted in light of the moderator effects of conscientiousness and extroversion.

Discussion

This study aimed to examine the nature of the roles that career decision self-efficacy and certain personality traits play in relation to two decisional criteria, CCA (or decisional discomfort) and overall level of decidedness. The recently developed Social Cognotive Career Theory (SCCT) CSM model was employed as the basis for positing and testing a model in which the relations of the personality traits to the decisional criteria are partly mediated by self-efficacy. In addition, we examined the possibility that the traits moderate the relation of self-efficacy to the decisional criteria.

Our path analytic findings were consistent with the assumption that the traits relate to decisional criteria, at least in part, through self-efficacy. In particular, each of the traits produced significant, though modest, links to self-efficacy which, in turn, was moderately related to decisional discomfort and decidedness. The indirect pathways from each trait to each criterion via self-efficacy were significant. Interestingly, direct paths from the traits to the decisional criteria depended on both the trait and the criterion. None of the traits yielded direct paths to decidedness, that is, apart from their indirect relations through self-efficacy. However, neuroticism and conscientiousness both produced direct paths to decisional discomfort in addition to their indirect paths via self-efficacy.

We also found that two of the three traits moderated self-efficacy/criterion relations. In particular, the level of extroversion served to accentuate the positive relation of self-efficacy to decidedness, whereas the level of conscientiousness served to strengthen the negative relation of self-efficacy to discomfort. That is, students were more career-decided when they reported higher levels of both self-efficacy and extroversion, and they experienced less decisional discomfort when they held favorable levels of both self-efficacy and conscientiousness. The non-significant relation of self-efficacy to decidedness at the lowest level of extroversion could reflect the low energy or activity tendencies of low-scorers on this trait. Those with low levels of extroversion may profit less from self-efficacy because their generally low energy or enthusiasm level inhibits more active engagement in the career exploration and decision-making process.

Together, the indirect, direct, and moderator findings suggest that the three traits and self-efficacy do not operate either as wholly independent or as redundant mechanisms of career indecision or decidedness. Rather, they may function as joint predictors, with each trait playing a somewhat complementary role in relation to self-efficacy. Theoretically, each of the traits may help inform the development of decisional self-efficacy over time. For example, the planfulness and persistence tendencies associated with conscientiousness may engender relatively favorable prior experiences with decision-making, both in career-relevant and other activity spheres. Extroversion and neuroticism, by fostering characteristic affective and cognitive tendencies, may color people’s interpretations of how well they have handled past decisions.

In addition to such distal effects on the development of career decision self-efficacy, the traits may play proximal roles in the face of current decisional challenges. For example, those with higher levels of extroversion and conscientiousness may report higher levels of self-efficacy (compared to those with high levels of neuroticism) because they can more easily recall instances of successful decision-making in the past and may, therefore, view current decisional tasks as positive challenges they are capable of managing, rather than as crises that can threaten their emotional state. Given that those with higher levels of neuroticism tend to report more anxiety generally, it was not surprising that neuroticism produced a direct path to career choice-specific anxiety (as reflected by the CCA). Likewise, those who see themselves as generally well organized and planful (i.e., conscientious) were found to report less choice-related anxiety. Extroversion and conscientiousness also each appeared to accentuate the benefits of self-efficacy on one of the two decisional criteria.

The present findings build on those of prior studies examining the joint relations of personality traits and self-efficacy to career decisional criteria. For example, Wang et al. (2006) also found that self-efficacy either fully or partially (depending on the sample) mediated the relations of extroversion and neuroticism to decisional outcomes. Xu and Tracey (2015) found that self-efficacy partially mediated the relation of ambiguity tolerance (a non-Big Five traits) to four types of decisional difficulties. Also, consistent with social cognitive assumptions (Bandura, 1986), self-efficacy generally produced higher bivariate relations with the decisional criteria than did the traits in our study. This may be because career decision self-efficacy is more closely matched to the criteria in terms of domain-specificity (i.e., both self-efficacy and the criterion variables share a focus on the career decision-making context whereas the traits reflect more global, cross-situational response tendencies).

Limitations and Implications

The findings should be interpreted in light of several limitations. In particular, though self-efficacy, personality traits, and decisional criteria are typically measured via self-report, the fact that all of the study’s variables were measured in this fashion suggests that the parameter estimates were sensitive to common method and common source biases. In addition, because the participants were self-selected college students at a single university, caution should be exercised in generalizing the findings to college students at other universities or to different populations of career decision-makers. The findings are further limited by the cross-sectional and correlational nature of the design. Though we found theory-consistent relations among the variables, these relations should not be interpreted in causal terms.

Several directions for future research may be cited, based partly on consideration of the study’s limitations. First, it would be useful to further examine the nature of the joint relations of extroversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and self-efficacy to career decision criteria in other samples, including decision-makers at different levels of career development (e.g., work-bound high school students, adult career changers). Second, the possible moderator role of traits relative to self-efficacy/criterion relations appears to have been understudied to this point. It will be useful to examine whether the interactions we found are replicable in other samples. If they are, this could have implications for extension of the CSM model. Third, it would be helpful to further clarify the nature of the relations between decisional discomfort and decidedness. We modeled them as covarying aspects of career decision progress, though it is also possible to posit directional relations among them with, for example, CCA serving as a key obstacle to (or determinant of) career decidedness.

Fourth, we studied only the CCA aspect of Brown et al.’s (2012) four-factor model of career indecision. Although this aspect has shown the strongest relation to decidedness in prior research, it would be useful to study the interplay of self-efficacy and personality relative to the other three indecision factors (neuroticism/negative affectivity, lack of readiness, and interpersonal conflicts) as well. Fifth, though cross-sectional designs allow examination of statistical mediation, there is a need for longitudinal designs that can test mediational models temporally. Such designs offer more rigorous tests of mediation by enabling measurement of predictors, mediators, and outcome variables at different points in time rather than simultaneously. They can also allow examination of possible bidirectional relations between self-efficacy and personality variables over time (e.g., Lent, do Céu Taveira, & Lobo, 2012; Lent, Miller, et al., 2016). Finally, it would be useful to examine whether interventions directed at modifiable aspects of the traits (e.g., promoting active, organized, and persistent career planning behavior in the case of conscientiousness) can bolster self-efficacy and/or directly facilitate change in the decisional criteria.

Implications of our findings for practice must be offered very tentatively given the study’s limitations. However, pending future research, particularly using longitudinal or experimental designs, it may be that efforts to enhance career decision self-efficacy offer a useful, proximal route to promoting career decidedness and reducing decisional discomfort. Such efforts can harness the theoretical sources of self-efficacy, for example, by structuring success experiences at career exploration, encouraging use of decisional balance sheets as an aid to decision-making, or exposing undecided clients to peer models who can demonstrate the value of proactive and continuous career planning. Though these sorts of interventions may be useful across levels of the personality traits, it is possible that efforts to address the obstacles posed by high levels of neuroticism or low levels of conscientiousness or extroversion may also add to the efficacy of choice interventions for particular clients. For example, individuals with high levels of neuroticism may profit from learning the impact of this cognitive style on their decision-making as well as from assistance at coping with feelings of negativity that are occasioned by the decision-making process. In sum, future research on the interplay among self-efficacy and personality variables in relation to decisional outcomes has the potential to broaden both theory and practice related to career decision-making processes.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

This article includes data from the first author’s master’s thesis. We wish to thank Steven D. Brown for his comments on an earlier version of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

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

References

Abrams

M. D.

Ómarsdóttir

A. Ó.

Björnsdóttir

M. D.

Einarsdóttir

Martin

Carr

… Rector

. (2013). Measurement invariance of the Career Indecision Profile: United States and Iceland. Journal of Career Assessment, 21, 469–482. doi:10.1177/1069072712475181

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Betz

N. E.

Hammond

M. S.

Multon

K. D.

(2005). Reliability and validity of five-level response continua for the career decision self-efficacy scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 13, 131–149. doi:10.1177/1069072704273123

Betz

N. E.

Klein

K. L.

Taylor

K. M.

(1996). Evaluation of a short form of the career decision-making self-efficacy scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 47–57. doi:10.1177/106907279600400103

Betz

N. E.

Luzzo

D. A.

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

Brown

S. D.

Hacker

Abrams

Carr

Rector

Lamp

… Siena

. (2012). Validation of a four-factor model of career indecision. Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 3–21. doi:10.1177/1069072711417154

Brown

S. D.

Hirschi

(2013). Personality, career development, and occupational attainment. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (2nd ed., pp. 299–328). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Brown

S. D.

Rector

C. C.

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

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (4th ed., pp. 392–407). New York, NY: Wiley.

Carr

Rossier

Rosselet

J. G.

Massoudi

Bernaud

Ferrari

… Roche

. (2014). The Career Indecision Profile: Measurement equivalence in two international samples. Journal of Career Assessment, 22, 123–137. doi:10.1177/1069072713492930

10.

Caspi

Roberts

B. W.

Shiner

R. L.

(2005). Personality development: Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453–484. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141913

11.

Choi

B. Y.

Park

Yang

Lee

S. K.

Lee

S. M

. (2012). Understanding career decision self-efficacy: A meta-analytic approach. Journal of Career Development, 39, 443–460. doi:10.1177/0894845311398042

12.

Crites

J. O.

(1969). Vocational psychology: The study of vocational behavior and its development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

13.

Di Fabio

Palazzeschi

Levin

Gati

(2015). The role of personality in the career decision-making difficulties of Italian young adults. Journal of Career Assessment, 23, 281–293. doi:10.1177/1069072714535031

14.

Feldt

R. C.

Ferry

Bullock

Camarotti-Carvalho

Collingwood

Eilers

Nurre

(2011). Personality, career indecision, and college adjustment in the first semester. Individual Differences Research, 9, 107–114.

15.

Gati

Krausz

Osipow

S. H.

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

16.

Hacker

Carr

Abrams

Brown

S. D.

(2013). Development of the career indecision profile: Factor structure, reliability, and validity. Journal of Career Assessment, 21, 32–41. doi:10.1177/1069072712453832

17.

Hartman

R. O.

Betz

N. E.

(2007). The five-factor model and career self-efficacy: General and domain-specific relationships. Journal of Career Assessment, 15, 145–161. doi:10.1177/1069072706298011

18.

Hirschi

Hermann

(2013). Assessing difficulties in career decision making among Swiss adolescents with the German my vocational situation scale. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 72, 33–42. doi:10.1024/1421-0185/a0000970

19.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

20.

Jones

L. K.

(1989). Measuring a three-dimensional construct of career indecision among college students: A revision of the vocational decision scale: The career decision profile. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 477–486. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.36.4.477

21.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

(2006). On conceptualizing and assessing social cognitive constructs in career research: A measurement guide. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 12–35. doi:10.1177/1069072705281364

22.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

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

23.

Lent

R. W.

do Céu Taveira

Lobo

(2012). Two tests of the social cognitive model of well-being in Portuguese college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 362–371. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.08.009

24.

Lent

R. W.

Ezeofor

Morrison

M. A.

Penn

L. T.

Ireland

G. W.

(2016). Applying the social cognitive model of career self-management to career exploration and decision-making. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 93, 47–57. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2015.12.007

25.

Lent

R. W.

Miller

M. J.

Smith

P. E.

Watford

B. A.

Lim

R. H.

Hui

(2016). Social cognitive predictors of academic persistence and performance in engineering: Applicability across gender and race/ethnicity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 94, 79–88. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2016.02.012

26.

Martincin

K. M.

Stead

G. B.

(2015). Five-factor model and difficulties in career decision-making: A meta-analysis. Journal of Career Assessment, 23, 3–19. doi:10.1177/1069072714523081

27.

McCrae

R. R

Costa

P. T.

Ostendorf

Angleitner

Hrebickova

Avia

M. D.

… Smith

P. B

. (2000). Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 173–186. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.173

28.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O

. (1998–2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

29.

Page

Bruch

M. A.

Haase

R. F.

(2008). Role of perfectionism and Five-Factor model traits in career indecision. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 811–815. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.08.013

30.

Palmer

J. K.

Loveland

J. M.

(2004). Further investigation of the psychometric properties of Saucier’s Big Five ‘mini-markers:’ Evidence for criterion and construct validity. Individual Differences Research, 2, 231–238.

31.

Rogers

M. E.

Creed

P. A.

Glendon

A. I.

(2008). The role of personality in adolescent career planning and exploration: A social cognitive perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 132–142. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.02.002

32.

Rounds

J. B.

Tinsley

H. E. A.

(1984). Diagnosis and treatment of vocational problems. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 137–177). New York, NY: Wiley.

33.

Saucier

. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five Markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506–516. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6303_8

34.

Solberg

V. S.

Good

G. E.

Fischer

A. R.

Brown

S. D.

Nord

(1995). Career decision-making and career search activities: Relative effects of career search self-efficacy and human agency. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 448–455. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.42.4.448

35.

Stumpf

S. A.

Colarelli

S. M.

Hartman

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

36.

Taylor

K. M.

Betz

N. E.

(1983). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the understanding and treatment of indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 63–81. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(83)90006-4

37.

Tokar

D. M.

Fischer

A. R.

Subich

L. M.

(1998). Personality and vocational behavior: A selective review of the literature, 1993-1997. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 115–153. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1998.1660

38.

Wang

Jome

L. M.

Haase

R. F.

Bruch

M. A.

(2006). The role of personality and career decision-making self-efficacy in the career choice commitment of college students. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 312–332. doi:10.1177/1069072706286474

39.

Tracey

T. J. G.

(2015). Ambiguity tolerance with career indecision: An examination of the mediation effect of career decision-making self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 23, 519–532. doi:10.1177/1069072714553073