Brown S.D., Lent R. (Editors). Career development and counseling: putting theory and research to work

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

96 M

AJOR

HEORIES OF

AREER

EVELOPMENT

, C

HOICE

AND

DJUSTMENT

requires balancing occupational preferences with other life roles and obligations,

current or expected. The aim of such examination is not to identify the one best ca-

reer (a chimera, in any case), but to set a favorable direction and avoid big mistakes.

Middle/junior high school students (cell 7) can be introduced to such consider-

ations by simple exercises that have them, for example, enumerate the different

life roles and life choices they observe, document that jobs in their community re-

quire different skills and reward different interests, evaluate the life decisions

that literary characters or others have made, and speculate about how workers’

jobs and family lives affect each other.

High school and college students (cell 8) need to start constructing tentative

career plans while still in school because poor educational decisions can effec-

tively block some paths in life. They have already ruled out many occupations as

potential careers for themselves, and they now need to pick one option from their

social space. A first step is to identify occupations entailing activities and re-

wards

that would satisfy someone with their interests and then determine

whether

they have, or can acquire, the abilities and skills necessary to get the job

and perform it well.

Vo cational psychologists have developed a wide variety of computerized sys-

tems (e.g., DISCOVER, SIGI), occupational classifications (e.g., Holland’s six-

category RIASEC typology), and vocational interest inventories (e.g., Strong

Interest Inventory, Self-Directed Search) for matching people’s interests to

occupations (Gore & Hitch, Chapter 16, this volume; Prince & Heiser, 2000;

Ryan Krane & Tirre, Chapter 14, this volume). There are relatively few such

tools for as

sessing

person-job match on the basis of abilities (e.g., O*NET, 2004,

http://on l i ne.onetcenter.

org).

However, a review of the job aptitudes literature

suggests that both people and jobs can be classified in terms of general ability

level and ability profile (Gottfredson, 2003). Jobs requiring only average intelli-

gence (e.g., most crafts, clerical, sales, and protective service work) are distin-

guished primarily by whether they also draw on mechanical-spatial ability

(mostly Holland’s Realistic work), extraversion (Social and Enterprising work), or

clerical speed and conscientiousness (Conventional work). There is relatively little

mid-level Artistic or Investigative work. Jobs requiring above-average general in-

telligence (mostly college-entry jobs) are distinguished primarily by whether they

require an ability profile tilted toward verbal rather than math aptitude (law, the

humanities), a tilt toward math (medicine, mathematics, the biological and social

sciences), or a tilt toward math plus spatial ability (engineering, hard sciences).

These are not independent intelligences, but more like different flavors of general

intelligence. As noted earlier, schools provide ample opportunity to gauge intelli-

gence level and certain differences in profile shape (clerical, math, and verbal abil-

ities). Special efforts must be made, however, to ascertain whether students are

strong in mechanical-spatial aptitude, which tends to be higher among males.

Not all occupations that are compatible with an individual’s interests and abil-

ities necessarily mesh, however, with his or her nonwork life goals and obligations.

Although there are no goal-integration algorithms comparable to the RIASEC sys-

tem for matching interests with jobs, workshops and other aids can provide prac-

tice in clarifying goals, opportunities, and barriers; balancing competing goals and

needs; compiling a career life plan; and so on (e.g., Zunker, 1998).

Many students become anxious and seek help when they are required to make,

not just imagine, career life decisions. Counseling psychologists have, therefore,

c04.qxd 8/5/04 9:01 AM Page 96

Applying Gottfredson’s Theory of Circumscription and Compromise 97

paid particular attention to helping individuals who are having difficulty making

good career decisions or any at all (e.g., undecided students). Helping clients de-

velop a fitting and feasible career life plan is the vocational guidance question in

Savickas’s (1996) framework: What shall I choose?

PTIMIZE

ELF

-I

NVESTMENT

Perhaps the most difficult challenge counselees face is implementing a career

choice, that is, locating and obtaining the training or job that will initiate the cho-

sen career life. Success in doing so depends on the accessibility of the preferred

option, which depends in turn on many factors in constant motion, including per-

sonal qualifications and liabilities, available openings, and competition for them.

The preferred career may not be a realistic choice, necessitating compromise. The

risk in this process is that individuals will make unnecessary or unwise compro-

mises because they are not aware of, or do not take, opportunities to improve the

accessibility of the career lives they seek. The practical challenge for counselors

is: How can we help individuals assess and increase the odds of implementing

their preferred options?

Facilitate Appraisal of the Accessibility of Preferred Career Life Implementing a ca-

reer choice means investing in efforts toward that end. Just as with any other

vest ment, it requires committing time, effort, and material resources to locate

good investment opportunities. Any investment also imposes opportunity costs,

because resources are finite: Investing in some things means not investing in oth-

ers. Moreover, time and resources will be lost if poorly invested.

Appraising the accessibility of different career options is costly because the

requisite information is scattered, constantly changing, multifaceted, and often

difficult to interpret. Job banks, occupational projections, catalogs of training pro-

grams, and placement services can reduce the cost by providing up-to-date infor-

mation about openings currently or soon available in different lines of work (cell

9). The foregoing resources can also be used in assessing a client’s chances of se-

lection by providing profiles of the entry standards and competitors against

which the client will be judged. Realism also requires an accounting of a person’s

competing obligations, access to social and financial support, and personal risks

and tradeoffs involved in pursuing the preferred option. How good a bet is it, re-

ally? Its relative merits can be judged, and prudence served, by appraising the

merits of acceptable back-up or safety-net alternatives. The aim of such appraisal

is to have individuals, singly or in groups, identify their constraints. It sets the

stage for exploring ways they might mitigate or bypass them.

Promote Self-Agency in Enhancing Self, Opportunity, and Support to Implement Plans

Getting into and succeeding at our preferred career life is rarely, if ever, a sure

thing. It is, therefore, prudent to try to increase the odds in our favor, especially

when they are low to begin with. This requires enhancing our qualifications, mo-

bilizing support, or creating new opportunities for ourselves.

We cannot expect to change our intelligence, temperament, and other core (P)

traits, but we can learn to play to our strengths and avoid situations that bring out

our flaws. Our narrower, more specific (P-E) attributes are more malleable, how-

ever. We can, therefore, invest in ourselves by developing new skills, beneficial

c04.qxd 8/5/04 9:01 AM Page 97

98 M

AJOR

HEORIES OF

AREER

EVELOPMENT

, C

HOICE

AND

DJUSTMENT

habits, and strategies for coping with specific situations. The same is true of our

social circumstances; some are effectively fixed but others can be changed. There

is always leeway for shaping the environment, and certainly our own life niche

(extended phenotype), by creating new opportunities, generating or defying ex-

pectations, building support networks, and incurring or deflecting obligations.

For instance, an inventory of clients’ strengths and weaknesses, social advan-

tages, and barriers will identify much that they can highlight, modify, or mitigate.

If not very competitive for a particular job or educational program, they can ac-

quire relevant experience and skills training (using the tools in cell 6 of Table 4.1).

Counselees can also become more effective applicants by learning how to write

good resumes or how to dress and prepare for interviews. They can identify more

job opportunities inside and outside their birth niches by consulting career

cen-

ters as well as compatriots; generate additional emotional, social, and financial re-

sources by seeking out mentors, advisors, and scholarships; gain confidence as well

as contacts by getting more work experience, either paid or volunteer; and ease

anxieties by developing contingency plans.

Once again, there are large individual differences, this time in seeking and

grasping opportunity. Whereas some counselees show initiative, optimism, and

energy in seeking good options and overcoming barriers, others let circumstances

govern their fate. Whereas some are quick to spot and take advantage of opportuni-

ties, others are overwhelmed by the cognitive or emotional demands involved.

Counselors need to provide more emotional and logistic support for the latter.

They also need to work with some counselees to suppress destructive or distasteful

behavior, such as extreme impulsiveness, aggressiveness, hostility, or lying, by en-

couraging them to get skills training (change themselves directly) or avoid the ex-

periences and settings that trigger the behavior (change their environments).

The foregoing self-investment strategies relate to Savickas’s (1996) occupational

placement question: How do I get a job? When they are used to aid persons already

working, they relate to his position coaching question: How can I do better?

SUMMARY

Dealing with the barriers in life is difficult, and the freedom to choose can be yet

more daunting when stakes are high and conditions uncertain. The gift of occu-

pational choice, albeit constrained, poses big challenges for our 1,000 newborns.

Confused or overwhelmed, some drift with the currents of their birth niche,

thereby abdicating the opportunity and responsibility to direct their lives. Others

gradually exercise control, but too late to avoid irreversible loss of opportunity.

Career counselors can help clients use their freedom to answer the challenges i

poses. As outlined here, they can first help individuals avoid unnecessary, self-

limiting circumscription and compromise. They can then help individuals iden-

tify and wisely invest the genetic and social resources at their disposal to fashion

gratifying career lives.

REFERENCES

Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evi-

dence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and

assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

c04.qxd 8/5/04 9:01 AM Page 98

Applying Gottfredson’s Theory of Circumscription and Compromise 99

Bergmann, C. S., Plomin, R., Pedersen, N. L., McClearn, G. E., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1990).

Genetic and environmental influences on social support: The Swedish Adoption/Twin

Study of Aging (SATSA). Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 45, 101–106.

Betsworth, D. G., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Cooper, C. R., Grotevant, H. D., Hansen, J. I. C.,

Scarr, S., et al. (1994). Genetic and environmental influences on vocational interests

assessed using adoptive and biological families and twins reared apart and together.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 263–278.

Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Lykken, D. T., Tellegen, A., & McGue, M. (1996). Genes, drives, envi-

ronment, and experience: EPD theory revised. In C. P. Benbow & D. Lubinski (Eds.),

Intellectual talent: Psychometric and social issues (pp. 5–43). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University Press.

Brown, S. D., & Ryan Krane, N. E. (2000). Four (or five) sessions and a cloud of dust: Old

assumptions and new observations about career counseling. In S. D. Brown & R. W.

Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd ed., pp. 740–766). New York: Wiley.

Dunn, J., & Plomin, R. (1990). Separate lives: Why sibling are so different. New York: Basic

Books.

Gottfredson, L. S. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory of

occupational aspirations [Monograph]. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 545–579.

Gottfredson, L. S. (1986). Occupational aptitude patterns map: Development and implica-

tions for a theory of job aptitude requirements [Monograph]. Journal of Vocational Be-

havior, 29, 254–291.

Gottfredson, L. S. (1996). Gottfredson’s Theory of Circumscription and Compromise. In

D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates. (Eds.), Career choice and development (3rd ed.,

pp. 179–232). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24,

79–132.

Gottfredson, L. S. (1999). The nature and nurture of vocational interests. In M. L. Sav-

ickas & A. R. Spokane (Eds.), Vocational interests: Their meaning, measurement, and use in

counseling (pp. 57–85). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). Gottfredson’s theory of circumscription, compromise, and self-

creation. In D. Brown & Associates (Eds.), Career choice and development (4th ed.,

pp.85–148). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). The challenge and promise of cognitive career assessment. Jour-

nal of Career Assessment, 11, 115–135.

Gottfredson, L. S. (2004). Intelligence: Is it the health epidemiologists’ elusive “funda-

mental cause” of health inequalities? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86,

174–199.

Gottfredson, L. S., & Lapan, R. T. (1997). Assessing gender-based circumscription of oc-

cupational aspirations. Journal of Career Assessment, 5, 419–441.

Gysbers, N. C., & Henderson, P. (1994). Developing and managing your school guidance pro-

gram (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Jensen, A. R. (1997). The puzzle of nongenetic variance. In R. J. Sternberg & E. Grig-

orenko (Eds.), Intelligence, heredity, and environment (pp. 42–88). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Kirsch, I. S., Jungeblut, A., & Mosenthal, P. B. (1994). Moving towards the measurement of

adult literacy. Paper presented at the March NCES meeting, Washington, DC.

Krumboltz, J. D. (1994). Improving career development theory from a social learning per-

spective. In M. L. Savickas & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Convergence in career development theories:

Implications for science and practice (pp. 9–31). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists

Press.

Lapan, R. T., Adams, A., Turner, S. L., & Hinkelman, J. M. (2000). Seventh graders’ voca-

tional interest and efficacy expectation patterns. Journal of Career Development, 26,

215–229.

Lazarus, R. S. (1980). The stress and coping paradigm. In L. A. Bond & J. C. Rosen (Eds.),

Primary prevention of psychopathology: Vol. 4. Competence and coping in adulthood.

Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

Lent, R. W., & Hackett, G. (1994). Sociocognitive mechanisms of personal agency in career

development. In M. L. Savickas & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Convergence in career development

c04.qxd 8/5/04 9:01 AM Page 99

100 M

AJOR

HEORIES OF

AREER

EVELOPMENT

, C

HOICE

AND

DJUSTMENT

theories: Implications for science and practice (pp. 77–101). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psy-

chologists Press.

Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Genes and environment in personality development. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Lubrano, A. (2003). Limbo: Blue-collar roots, white-collar dreams. New York: Wiley.

Lyons, M. J., Goldberg, J., Eisen, S. A., True, W., Tsuang, M. T., Meyer, J. M., et al. (1993).

Do genes influence exposure to trauma: A twin study of combat. American Journal of

Medical Genetics (Neuropsychiatric Genetics), 48, 22–27.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2000, August). Results over time—NAEP 1999

long-term trend summary data tables. Available from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard

tables/Ltt1999.

Niles, S. G., & Harris-Bowlsbey, J. (2002). Career development interventions in the 21st cen-

tury. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.

Plomin, R., & Bergmann, C. S. (1991). The nature of nurture: Genetic influence on “envi-

ronmental” measures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 373–427.

Plomin, R., DeFries, J. D., McClearn, J. E., & McGuffin, P. (2001). Behavioral genetics (4th

ed.). New York: Worth.

Plomin, R., Lichtenstein, P., Pedersen, N. L., McClearn, G. E., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1990).

Genetic influence on life events during the last half of the life span. Psychology and

Aging, 5, 25–30.

Plomin, R., & Petrill, S. A. (1997). Genetics and intelligence: What’s new? Intelligence, 24,

53–77.

Prince, J. P., & Heiser, L. J. (2000). Essentials of career interest assessment. New York: Wiley.

Roselle, B., & Hummel, T. (1988). Intellectual development and interaction effectiveness

with DISCOVER. Career Development Journal, 35–36, 241–251.

Rowe, D. C. (1994). The limits of family influence: Genes, experience, and behavior. New York:

Guilford Press.

Rowe, D. C., Vesterdal, W. J., & Rodgers, J. L. (1998). Herrnstein’s syllogism: Genetic and

shared environmental influences on IQ, education, and income. Intelligence, 26, 405–423.

Savickas, M. L. (1996). A framework for linking career theory and practice. In M. L. Sav-

ickas & W. B. Walsh (Eds.), Handbook of career counseling theory and practice (pp. 191–208).

Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of

genotype environment effects. Child Development, 54, 424–435.

Snow, R. E. (1996). Aptitude development and education. Psychology, Public Policy, and

Law, 2, 536–560.

Sticht, T. G., Armstrong, W. B., Hickey, D. T., & Caylor, J. S. (1987). Cast-off youth: Policy

and training methods from the military experience. New York: Praeger.

Tesser, A. (1993). The importance of heritability in psychological research: The case of at-

titudes. Psychological Review, 100, 129–142.

United States Census Office. (1902). Abstract of the twelfth census of the United States, 1900.

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2002. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration.

Va ndiver, B. J., & Bowman, S. L. (1996). A schematic reconceptualization and application

of Gottfredson’s model. In M. L. Savickas & W. B. Walsh (Eds.), Handbook of career coun-

seling theory and practice (pp. 155–168). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Zunker, V. G. (1998). Career counseling: Applied concepts of life planning (5th ed.). New York:

Brooks/Cole.

c04.qxd 8/5/04 9:01 AM Page 100

101

CHAPTER 5

A Social Cognitive View of Career

Development and Counseling

Robert W. Lent

N MANY WAYS

the career development process and the literature devoted to its

understanding resemble a giant jigsaw puzzle. The puzzle includes pieces such

as genetic endowment, environmental resources and barriers, learning experi-

ences, interests, abilities, values, personality, goals, choices, satisfaction, perfor-

mance, change (or development) over time, and multiple transitions, such as

school-to-work and retirement. Those who are fascinated by this puzzle have had

no difficulty identifying and studying its individual pieces. The greatest chal-

lenge, as with all jigsaw puzzles, lies in fitting the many different pieces together

to form a coherent picture.

But here is where the jigsaw analogy runs into trouble. Jigsaw puzzles per se

need only to achieve an aesthetic unity, and they can have only a single solution.

The pieces fit together to create a static picture that is pleasing to the eye. Career

theories, by contrast, deal with moving pictures. They need to create a framework

for understanding complex and dynamic (i.e., changing), as well as relatively sta-

ble, aspects of human behavior. They need to assemble the many elements of the

career development puzzle into a logical progression (or plausible story), which is

not the only version that is possible. They need to be capable of organizing exist-

ing knowledge and of generating new knowledge about how people live their work

lives. And, typically, we expect them to spawn interventions that will help pro-

mote optimal career and life outcomes for as many people as possible.

Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994) is a fairly

recent approach to understanding the career puzzle. It is intended to offer a unify-

ing framework for bringing together common pieces, or elements, identified by

previous career theorists—such as Super, Holland, Krumboltz, and Lofquist and

Dawis—and arranging them into a novel rendering of how people (1) develop vo-

cational interests, (2) make (and remake) occupational choices, and (3) achieve

varying levels of career success and stability. The primary foundation for this ap-

proach lies in Bandura’s (1986) general social cognitive theory, which emphasizes

c05.qxd 8/5/04 9:00 AM Page 101

102 M

AJOR

HEORIES OF

AREER

EVELOPMENT

, C

HOICE

AND

DJUSTMENT

the complex ways in which people, their behavior, and environments mutually in-

fluence one another. Taking its cue from Bandura’s theory, SCCT highlights peo-

ple’s capacity to direct their own vocational behavior (human agency)—to

assemble their own puzzle, so to speak—yet it also acknowledges the many per-

sonal and environmental influences (e.g., sociostructural barriers and supports,

culture, disability status) that serve to strengthen, weaken, or, in some cases, even

override human agency in career development.

This chapter contains three main sections:

1. An overview of SCCT’s basic elements and predictions.

2. A brief summary of the theory’s research base, including study of diverse

populations (e.g., people of color, women, persons with disabilities, gay and

lesbian workers).

Consideration of developmental and counseling applications—that is, how

SCCT can be used as a source of ideas for maximizing career options, foster-

ing career choice-making and implementation, and promoting career success

and satisfaction.

More comprehensive, technical presentations of SCCT, its research base, concep-

tual underpinnings, relations to earlier career theories, practical implications, and

applications to particular populations can be found in other sources (e.g., Brown &

Lent, 1996; Fabian, 2000; Hackett & Byars, 1996; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994, 2000;

Lent & Hackett, 1994; Morrow, Gore, & Campbell, 1996; Swanson & Gore, 2000).

SOCIAL COGNITIVE CAREER THEORY’S

BASIC ELEMENTS AND MODELS

This section presents SCCT’s basic elements, along with a description of how

they fit together with other variables to form theoretical models of academic and

career interest, choice, and performance.

OMPETING

—

OMPLEMENTARY

—S

OLUTIONS TO THE

AREER

UZZLE

Trait-factor (or person-environment fit) career models, as exemplified by Holland’s

typology (see Spokane & Cruza-Guet, Chapter 2, this volume) and the theory of

work

adjustment (Dawis, Chapter 1, this volume), tend to view people and their

work environments in trait-oriented terms, emphasizing attributes that are rela-

tively global, constant, and enduring across time and situations. Trait models as-

sume that much of what drives career behavior is based on proclivities—such as

interests, abilities, values, and personality dispositions—that are largely molded

by genetic endowment and early learning experiences. These models have con-

tributed greatly to the understanding of career behavior and to career counseling

by highlighting relatively stable features of persons and environments that, if ap-

propriately matched, are likely to lead to satisfying (from the perspective of the

person) and satisfactory (from the perspective of the environment) choices.

Developmental career theories (see Savickas, Chapter 3, and Gottfredson,

Chapter 4, this volume) tend to focus on more or less predictable challenges that

people face on their way to and through adulthood—challenges (such as learning

c05.qxd 8/5/04 9:00 AM Page 102

A Social Cognitive View of Career Development and Counseling 103

about themselves, exploring the world of work, developing a vocational identity,

narrowing career options from the larger fund of possibilities, selecting a career,

and adjusting to work) that enable them to take on and (it is hoped) flourish at the

role of worker. Certain developmental theories are also concerned with how the

worker role relates to other life roles (e.g., parent, leisurite), how contextual factors

(e.g., socioeconomic status) affect career trajectories, and—in the case of Savickas’s

emerging developmental perspective—how people help to construct, or author,

their own career/life stories and experiences.

Social Cognitive Career Theory shares certain features and goals with the trait-

factor and developmental perspectives, yet it also is relatively distinctive in several

respects. For example, like trait-factor theories, SCCT acknowledges the important

roles that interests, abilities, and values play within the career development pro-

cess. Along with developmental theories, SCCT shares a focus on how people nego-

tiate particular developmental milestones (e.g., career choice) and hurdles (e.g.,

prematurely eliminated options) that have an important bearing on their career fu-

tures. At the most general level, all three perspectives (trait-factor, developmental,

social cognitive) are concerned with the prediction, understanding, and optimiza-

tion of career development. They simply emphasize somewhat different processes

and predictors, or theoretical mechanisms—differences that may prove to be more

complementary and bridgeable than irreconcilable (Lent & Savickas, 1994).

In contrast to trait-factor approaches, SCCT highlights relatively dynamic and

situation-specific aspects of both people (e.g., self-views, future expectations, be-

havior) and their environments (e.g., social supports, financial barriers). While the

stability of traits helps in predicting certain outcomes (Dawis, Chapter 1, this vol-

ume), traits encourage a focus on the constancy in human behavior—for example,

why people and environments remain the same over time. This is an extremely im-

portant matter: Part of the success of career counseling lies in its ability to help

people forecast the types of careers that they are likely to enjoy and do well in.

However, a moment’s reflection will reveal that people and environments do not

always remain the same; indeed, they sometimes change dramatically. Witness, for

example, the huge changes brought about in the workplace by technology, corpo-

rate downsizing, and economic globalization—and the consequent demands that

such changes have placed on workers to update their skills and cultivate new inter-

ests (or find a new home for their old ones).

By focusing on cognitions, behavior, and other factors that, theoretically, are

relatively malleable and responsive to particular situations and performance do-

mains, SCCT offers an agenda that is complementary to that of the trait-factor per-

spective—namely, how people are able to change, develop, and regulate their own

behavior over time and in different situations. As a result, SCCT may be able to

help fill in certain gaps in trait-factor theories—for example, how do interests dif-

ferentiate and intensify or shift over time? What factors, other than traits, stimu-

late career choice and change? How can career skills be nurtured and deficient

performance remediated?

The issue of SCCT’s differences from developmental theories is a somewhat

more complex matter, given the considerable heterogeneity that exists among older

and newer (and even just among newer) theories within this camp. However, at a

general level, SCCT tends to be less concerned with the specifics of ages and stages

of career developmental tasks, yet more concerned with particular theoretical ele-

ments that may promote (or stymie) effective career behavior across devel

opmental

c05.qxd 8/5/04 9:00 AM Page 103

104 M

AJOR

HEORIES OF

AREER

EVELOPMENT

, C

HOICE

AND

DJUSTMENT

tasks. For this reason, SCCT may provide a complementary framework from which

to address questions that are relevant to particular developmental

theories—such as how work and other life roles become more or less salient for

particular individuals (Super’s theory), how individuals’ career options become

constricted or circumscribed (Gottfredson’s theory), and, perhaps most impor-

tantly, how people are able to assert agency (i.e., self-direction) in their own devel-

opmental progress (Savickas’s theory).

ENTRAL

IECES OF THE

UZZLE

, A

CCORDING TO

OCIAL

OGNITIVE

AREER

HEORY

Following general social cognitive theory, SCCT highlights the interplay among

three person variables that enable the exercise of agency in career development:

self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, and personal goals. Self-efficacy

beliefs refer to “people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute

courses of action required to attain designated types of performances” (Bandura,

1986, p. 391). These beliefs, which are among the most important determinants of

thought and action in Bandura’s (1986) theory, have received a great deal of atten-

tion from career researchers (e.g., Lent et al., 1994; Rottinghaus, Larson, &

Borgen, 2003; Swanson & Gore, 2000). In the social cognitive view, self-efficacy is

not a unitary or global trait, like self-esteem (i.e., general feelings of self-worth),

with which self-efficacy is often confused. Rather, self-efficacy is conceived as a

dynamic set of self-beliefs that are linked to particular performance domains and

activities.

An individual might, for instance, hold high self-efficacy beliefs about his or her

ability to play piano or basketball but feel much less competent at social or me-

chanical tasks. These beliefs about personal capabilities, which are subject to

change and are responsive to environmental conditions (e.g., How supportive is the

piano teacher? How tough is the basketball competition?), may be acquired and

modified via four primary informational sources (or types of learning experience):

1. Personal performance accomplishments.

2. Vicarious learning.

3. Social persuasion.

4. Physiological and affective states (Bandura, 1997).

The impact that these informational sources have on self-efficacy depends on a

variety of factors, such as how the individual attends to and interprets them.

However, in general, personal accomplishments have the potential to exert the

greatest influence on self-efficacy. Compelling success experiences with a given

task or performance domain (e.g., math) tend to raise self-efficacy in relation to

that task or domain; convincing or repeated failures tend to lower task or domain

self-efficacy.

Outcome expectations refer to beliefs about the consequences or outcomes of per-

forming particular behaviors. Whereas self-efficacy beliefs are concerned with an

individual’s capabilities (e.g., “Can I do this?”), outcome expectations involve

imagined consequences of particular courses of action (e.g., “If I try doing this,

what will happen?”). Bandura (1986) maintained that both self-efficacy and out-

come expectations help to determine a number of important aspects of human be-

havior, such as the activities that people choose to pursue and the ones they

c05.qxd 8/5/04 9:00 AM Page 104

A Social Cognitive View of Career Development and Counseling 105

avoid. Self-efficacy may be the more influential determinant in many situations

that call for complex skills or potentially costly or difficult courses of action (e.g.,

whether to pursue a medical career). In such situations, people may hold positive

outcome expectations (e.g., “A medical career can lead to attractive payoffs”), but

avoid a choice or action if they doubt they have the capabilities required to suc-

ceed at it (i.e., where self-efficacy is low).

On the other hand, we can also envision scenarios where self-efficacy is high

but outcome expectations are low. Such belief patterns may be held by some

women or students of color, for example, who are confident in their capabilities in

a particular performance domain (e.g., math, science) but who refrain from elec-

tive courses or advanced study in that domain because of negative expectations of

how they would be treated (e.g., chilly environment, discrimination; see Betz,

Chapter 11, this volume). Suffice it to say that both self-efficacy and outcome ex-

pectations can influence people’s choices, and their relative effects may depend

on the person and the situation. People develop outcome expectations about dif-

ferent academic and career paths from a variety of direct and vicarious learning

experiences, such as perceptions of the outcomes they have personally received in

relevant past endeavors and the secondhand information they acquire about dif-

ferent career fields. Self-efficacy can also affect outcome expectations, especially

in situations where outcomes are closely tied to the quality of their performance

(e.g., strong performance on a classroom test is typically linked to a high grade,

teacher praise, and other positive outcomes), because people usually expect to re-

ceive favorable outcomes in performing tasks at which they feel competent.

Personal goals may be defined as an individual’s intention to engage in a partic-

ular activity or to produce a particular outcome (Bandura, 1986), addressing ques-

tions such as, “How much and how well do I want to do this?” Social Cognitive

Career Theory distinguishes between choice-content goals (the type of activity or ca-

reer the individual wishes to pursue) and performance goals (the level or quality of

performance the individual plans to achieve within a chosen endeavor). Goals af-

ford an important means by which people exercise agency in their educational and

occupational pursuits. By setting personal goals, people help to organize, direct,

and sustain their own behavior, even over long intervals without external payoffs.

Social cognitive theory maintains that people’s choice and performance goals

are importantly affected by their self-efficacy and outcome expectations. For ex-

ample, strong self-efficacy and positive outcome expectations in relation to musi-

cal performance are likely to nurture music-relevant goals, such as the intention

to devote time to practice, to seek performing opportunities, and, perhaps (de-

pending on the nature and strength of their self-efficacy and outcome expecta-

tions in other domains), to pursue a career in music. Progress (or lack of progress)

in attaining goals, in turn, has a reciprocal influence on self-efficacy and outcome

expectations. Successful goal pursuit, for example, may further strengthen self-

efficacy and outcome expectations within a positive cycle.

SSEMBLING

OCIAL

OGNITIVE

AREER

HEORY

’

HEORETICAL

RAMEWORK

: T

HREE

EGMENTAL

ODELS

In SCCT, (1) the development of academic and career interests, (2) the formation

of educational and vocational choices, and (3) the nature and results of perfor-

mance in academic and career spheres are conceived as occurring within three

conceptually distinct yet interlocking process models (Lent et al., 1994). In each

c05.qxd 8/5/04 9:00 AM Page 105