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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

106 M

AJOR

HEORIES OF

AREER

EVELOPMENT

, C

HOICE

AND

DJUSTMENT

model, presented next, the basic theoretical elements—self-efficacy, outcome ex-

pectations, and goals—are seen as operating in concert with other important as-

pects of persons (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity), their contexts, and learning

experiences to help shape the contours of academic and career development.

Interest Model Home, educational, recreational, and peer environments expose

children and adolescents to an array of activities—such as crafts, sports, math,

socializing, and computers—that may be harbingers of later career or leisure op-

tions. Young people are selectively encouraged by parents, teachers, peers, and

important others for pursuing and for trying to perform well certain activities

from among those that are available to them. By practicing different activities—

and by receiving ongoing feedback, both positive and negative, about the quality

of their performances—children and adolescents gradually refine their skills, de-

velop personal performance standards, and form self-efficacy and outcome ex-

pectations about different tasks and domains of behavior. For example, rebuke

from peers about an individual’s athletic skills (e.g., hearing the repeated mes-

sage, “You stink”) is likely to deflate his or her self-efficacy and outcome expec-

tations in this domain.

According to SCCT’s interest model, illustrated in Figure 5.1, self-efficacy and

outcome expectations about particular activities help to mold career interests

(i.e., each

person’s particular pattern of likes, dislikes, and indifferences in rela-

tion to career-relevant tasks). Interest in an activity is likely to blossom and endure

when people (1) view themselves as competent (self-efficacious) at the

activity and

(2) anti

cipate that performing it will produce valued outcomes (positive outcome

expectations). At the same time, people are likely to develop disinterest or even

aversion toward activities (such as athletics, in the preceding example) at which

they doubt their efficacy and expect to receive undesirable outcomes.

As interests emerge, they—along with self-efficacy and outcome expectations—

encourage intentions, or goals, for sustaining or increasing the individual’s in-

volvement in particular activities. Goals, in turn, increase the likelihood of activity

practice, and subsequent practice efforts give rise to a particular pattern of perfor-

mance attainments, which, for better or worse, helps to revise self-efficacy and out-

come expectations within an ongoing feedback loop. This basic process is seen as

repeating itself continuously before career entry. Consistent with the assumptions

of trait-factor theories, career-related interests do tend to stabilize over time and,

R. W. Lent, S. D. Brown, and G. Hackett. Reprinted by permission.

Performance

outcomes

(e.g., goal attain-

ment, skill

development)

Sources of

self-efficacy

and outcome

expectations

Self-efficacy

expectations

Outcome

expectations

Activity

selection

and practice

Intentions/

goals for

activity

involvment

Interests

c05.qxd 8/5/04 9:00 AM Page 106

A Social Cognitive View of Career Development and Counseling 107

for many people, are relatively stable by late adolescence or early adulthood (see

Hansen, Chapter 12, this volume). In the view of SCCT, however, adult interests are

not necessarily set in stone. Whether interests change or solidify is determined by

factors such as whether initially preferred activities become restricted and whether

people are exposed (or expose themselves) to compelling learning experiences

(e.g., childrearing, volunteering, technological innovations) that enable them to ex-

pand their sense of efficacy and positive outcome expectations into new spheres

(e.g., teaching, social service, computer use). Thus, SCCT assumes that, when they

occur, shifts in interests are largely due to changing self-efficacy beliefs and out-

come expectations.

Social Cognitive Career Theory also takes into account other aspects of people

and their environments that affect the acquisition and modification of interests.

For example, abilities and values—staples of trait-factor theories—are important in

SCCT, too, but their effects on interest are seen as largely funneled through self-

efficacy and outcome expectations. That is, rather than determining interests di-

rectly, objective ability (as reflected by test scores, trophies, awards, and the like)

serves to raise or lower self-efficacy beliefs, which, in turn, influence interests

(Lent et al., 1994). In other words, self-efficacy functions as an intervening link be-

tween ability and interests. Career-related values are built into SCCT’s concept of

outcome expectations. These expectations may be thought of as a combination of

people’s preferences for particular work conditions or reinforcers (e.g., status,

money, autonomy), together with their beliefs about the extent to which particular

occupations offer these payoffs (e.g., my beliefs about how much being a professor

can offer things that I value in and from work).

It needs to be emphasized that self-efficacy and outcome expectations do not

arise in a social vacuum; neither do they operate alone in shaping vocational in-

terest, choice, or performance processes. Rather, they are forged and function in

the context of other important qualities of persons and their environments, such

as gender, race/ethnicity, genetic endowment, physical health or disability sta-

tus, and socioeconomic conditions, all of which can play important roles within

the career development process. Figure 5.2 offers an overview of how, from the

perspective of SCCT, selected person, environmental, and learning or experien-

tial variables contribute to interests and other career outcomes. Given space limi-

tations, I focus on gender and race/ethnicity here.

Social Cognitive Career Theory is concerned more with the psychological and

social effects of gender and ethnicity than with the view of sex and race as cate-

gorical physical or biological factors. Gender and ethnicity are seen as linked to

career development in several key ways—in particular, through the sorts of reac-

tions they evoke from the social/cultural environment and from their relation to

the opportunity structure to which individuals are exposed (e.g., the access of-

fered to career-relevant models and performance experiences). Such a view en-

courages consideration of how gender and ethnicity influence the contexts in

which self-efficacy and outcome expectations are acquired. For instance, gender

role socialization processes tend to bias the access that boys and girls receive to

experiences necessary for developing strong efficacy beliefs and positive expecta-

tions about male-typed (e.g., science) and female-typed (e.g., helping) activities.

As a result, boys and girls are more likely to develop skills (along with beneficial

self-efficacy and outcome expectations) and, in turn, interests at tasks that are

culturally defined as gender appropriate (Hackett & Betz, 1981).

c05.qxd 8/5/04 9:00 AM Page 107

108 M

AJOR

HEORIES OF

AREER

EVELOPMENT

, C

HOICE

AND

DJUSTMENT

To a large extent, then, variables such as gender and ethnicity may affect inter-

est development and other career outcomes through certain socially constructed

processes that, as it were, operate in the background but, nevertheless, can power-

fully influence the differential learning experiences that foster self-efficacy and

outcome expectations—leading, at times, to skewed conclusions about what inter-

ests or career options are “right” for certain classes of persons. At later stages in

the career development process, gender, ethnicity, culture, socioeconomic status,

and disability conditions may, additionally, be linked to the opportunity structure

within which people set and implement their career goals, as discussed next.

Choice Model Choosing a career path is not a single or static act. As SCCT’s in-

terest model illustrates, career choice is preceded by a host of subprocesses—such

as the development of self-efficacy, outcome expectations, interests, and skills in

different performance domains—that, over time, will leave open and make attrac-

tive certain choice paths for a given individual and render other options much

less appealing or likely to be considered further. Once initial career choices are

made, they are, however, subject to future revision because individuals and their

environments are dynamic entities. Events and circumstances may well transpire

that could not have been foreseen during initial choice-making or career entry.

New paths (or branches from old paths) may open up, barriers (e.g., glass ceiling)

or calamities (e.g., job loss) may arise, or value and interest priorities may shift

over the course of the individual’s working life. Thus, it seems prudent to think of

career selection as an unfolding process with multiple influences and choice

points.

For conceptual simplicity, SCCT divides the initial choice process into three

component parts:

1. The expression of a primary choice (or goal) to enter a particular field.

2. An individual’s taking actions designed to implement his or her goal (e.g.,

enrolling in a particular training program or academic major).

Figure 5.2 Model of Person, Contextual, and Experiential Factors Affecting Career-

Related Choice Behavior. [Note: Direct relations between variables are indicated with

solid lines; moderator effects (where a given variable strengthens or weakens the rela-

Lent, S. D. Brown, and G. Hackett. Reprinted by permission.]

Background

contextual

affordances

Person Inputs

• Predispositions

• Gender

• Race/ethnicity

• Disability/

health status

Self-efficacy

expectations

Outcome

expectations

Choice

actions

Choice

goals

Interests

Contextual influences

proximal to choice behavior

Performance

domains and

attainments

Learning

experiences

moderates

c05.qxd 8/5/04 9:00 AM Page 108

A Social Cognitive View of Career Development and Counseling 109

Subsequent performance experiences (e.g., exemplary or subpar attainments)

that form a feedback loop, affecting the shape of the individual’s future

choice options.

This conceptual division identifies logical intervention targets for preparing peo-

ple to make career choices as well as for helping them to deal with problems in

choice-making. Throughout the choice process, it is well to keep in mind that peo-

ple do not choose careers unilaterally; environments also choose people. Thus, ca-

reer choice (and choice stability) is a two-way street that is conditioned, in part, by

the environment’s receptivity to the individual and judgments about his or her

ability to meet (and to continue to meet) training and occupational requirements.

Similar to Holland’s theory (Spokane & Cruza-Guet, Chapter 2, this volume),

SCCT assumes that, just as “birds of a feather flock together,” people’s vocational

interests tend to orient them toward choice options that might enable them to

perform preferred activities and to interact with others who have similar work

personalities. This flocking together works best under supportive environmental

conditions. For example, a person whose primary interests lie in the social do-

main is likely to gravitate toward socially oriented occupations, allowing him or

her to work with others in a helping or teaching capacity. However, this process is

not always so simple or unencumbered: Environments may not be supportive of

individuals’ choices, and people are not always free to pursue their primary in-

terests. Choice may be constrained, for example, by family wishes, economic real-

ities (e.g., the need to bring in immediate income, lack of funding for training),

and the quality of one’s prior education. In such instances, personal interests may

not be the prime mover behind an individual’s career choice. It is, therefore, im-

portant to take into account additional variables that influence the choice process.

Social Cognitive Career Theory’s choice model, shown in Figure 5.2, is embed-

ded within a larger conceptual scheme that acknowledges the precursors and se-

quelae of choices. As described earlier, self-efficacy and outcome beliefs are seen

as jointly influencing career-related interests, which tend to foster career choice

goals (i.e., intentions to pursue a particular career path) that are congruent with

an individual’s interests. Goals, then, motivate choice actions, or efforts to imple-

ment goals (e.g., seeking relevant training, applying for certain jobs). These ac-

tions are, in turn, followed by a particular pattern of performance successes and

failures. For instance, after gaining entry to an engineering college, a student

may have difficulty completing the required math and physics courses. He or she

may also discover that the work environment and rewards available in engineer-

ing suit him or her less well than had been initially anticipated. These learning

experiences may prompt the student to revise his or her self-efficacy beliefs and

outcome expectations, leading to a shift in interests and goals (e.g., selection of a

new major or career path).

Self-efficacy and outcome expectations can affect people’s goals and efforts to

implement their goals above and beyond the influence of interests (note the sepa-

rate paths from self-efficacy and outcome expectations to goals and actions in Fig-

ure 5.2). This is no esoteric matter: These additional theoretical paths are intended

to help explain occupational choice in many real-world instances where people are

not simply free to pursue their primary interests. As Bandura once observed (per-

sonal communication, March 1, 1993), people are not necessarily drawn to work on

assembly lines or in coal mines by a consuming interest in the work. When people

c05.qxd 8/5/04 9:00 AM Page 109

110 M

AJOR

HEORIES OF

AREER

EVELOPMENT

, C

HOICE

AND

DJUSTMENT

perceive the need to make occupational choices that compromise their interests or

for reasons other than interests—for instance, because of environmental barriers

or limited opportunities—they may choose less interesting options based on what

work is available to them, in concert with their self-efficacy (e.g., Do I have or can

I develop the skills to do this work?) and outcome expectations (e.g., Are the pay-

offs worth it for me to take this job?).

Let us consider some additional ways in which people’s environments affect the

choice process. Each person derives certain “affordances” from the environment—

for instance, social and material resources or hardships—that help to shape his or

her career development (Vondracek, Lerner, & Schulenberg, 1986). In SCCT, these

contextual affordances are divided into two general types, based on when they

occur within the choice process. The first type includes more distal, background

influences (e.g., cultural and gender role socialization, types of available career

role models, skill development opportunities) that help to shape self-efficacy, out-

come expectations, and, hence, interests. The second type involves environmental

influences that come into play during the active phases of choice-making. Exam-

ples include emotional or financial support for pursuing a particular option, job

availability in the individual’s preferred field, and sociostructural barriers, such

as discrimination. Figure 5.2 includes consideration of these distal (lower left) and

proximal (upper right) contextual affordances.

In presenting SCCT’s interest model, we had considered the more distal effects

of contextual variables on the acquisition of self-efficacy and outcome expecta-

tions. We here consider two means by which contextual factors may affect people

during the process of setting and implementing their career choice goals, thereby

helping to promote or lessen personal agency over their career choices. First,

SCCT posits that certain conditions may directly affect people’s choices or imple-

mentation possibilities. In certain cultures, for example, individuals may defer

their career decisions to significant others in the family, even where the others’

preferred career path is not all that interesting to the individual. People may also

encounter environmental supports or barriers in relation to the options that they,

themselves, most prefer. Such direct influences are represented by the solid ar-

rows from contextual variables to goals and actions in Figure 5.2.

Second, contextual variables may affect people’s ability or willingness to trans-

late their interests into goals and their goals into actions. According to SCCT, ca-

reer interests are more likely to blossom into goals (and goals are more likely to

be implemented) when people experience strong environmental supports and

weak barriers in relation to their preferred career paths. By contrast, nonsupport-

ive or hostile conditions can impede the process of transforming interests into

goals and goals into actions. In statistical terms, this implies that contextual sup-

ports and barriers can moderate the goal transformation process (shown by the

dotted paths in Figure 5.2). That is, the relations of interest to goals and of goals

to actions are expected to be stronger in the presence of favorable versus restric-

tive environmental conditions.

In summary, SCCT posits that educational and occupational choices are often,

but not always, linked to people’s interests. Circumstances and cultural conditions

sometimes require a compromise in personal interests. In such instances, choices

are determined by what options are available to the individual, the nature of his or

her self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations, and the sorts of messages the in-

dividual receives from his or her support system. Environmental factors (supports

c05.qxd 8/5/04 9:00 AM Page 110

A Social Cognitive View of Career Development and Counseling 111

and barriers) may also facilitate or hinder the choice implementation process, re-

gardless of whether people are pursuing options that are consistent with their pri-

mary interests or that they freely chose.

Performance Model In addition to how interests develop and choices are made,

SCCT is concerned with the factors that affect academic and career-related per-

formance. This includes the level (or quality) of attainment individuals achieve in

educational and work tasks (e.g., measures of success or proficiency) and the de-

gree to which they persist at particular tasks or choice paths, especially when

they encounter obstacles. Persistence can be seen both as a matter of choice sta-

bility, involving the decision to remain at or disengage from a particular activity

(e.g., educational task, job position, career), and as an indicator of how well an in-

dividual is performing at either required or chosen endeavors (e.g., perseverance

in problem solving). Thus, SCCT’s choice and performance models overlap some-

what in their concern with persistence. From the perspective of educational and

work environments, persistence is considered a sign of performance adequacy be-

cause it is assumed that competent performers will persist (and be allowed to per-

sist) longer, enabling attainment of educational milestones (e.g., high school

graduation, college major retention) and job tenure. However, persistence alone is

an imperfect indicator of performance adequacy because people often discon-

tinue their involvement in certain endeavors for reasons other than deficient ca-

pabilities (e.g., shift in interests, opportunity to pursue new job or career paths,

corporate downsizing).

As shown in Figure 5.3, SCCT sees educational and vocational performance as

involving the interplay among people’s ability, self-efficacy, outcome expectations,

and performance goals. More specifically, ability—as assessed by indicators of

achievement, aptitude, or past performance—affects performance attainments

both (1) directly, for instance, via the task knowledge and performance strategies

that people develop and (2) indirectly, by serving to inform self-efficacy and out-

come expectations. That is, people base their self-efficacy and outcome expecta-

tions partly on their perceptions of the skills they currently possess (or can

develop) and of how well they have performed and what outcomes they have re-

ceived under relevant performance conditions in the past. Self-efficacy and out-

come expectations, in turn, influence the level of performance goals that people set

Figure 5.3

Hackett. Reprinted by permission.

Self-efficacy

Outcome

expectations

Performance

goals/

subgoals

Performance

attainment

level

Ability/past

performance

c05.qxd 8/5/04 9:00 AM Page 111

112 M

AJOR

HEORIES OF

AREER

EVELOPMENT

, C

HOICE

AND

DJUSTMENT

for themselves (e.g., aiming for an A in algebra or a promotion at work). Stronger

self-efficacy and positive outcome expectations promote more ambitious goals,

which help to mobilize and sustain performance efforts.

Consistent with general social cognitive theory, SCCT posits a feedback loop

between performance attainments and subsequent behavior (Bandura, 1986). Sev-

eral benefits accrue from attempting and succeeding at performance tasks, espe-

cially ones that are progressively more challenging. Such experiences provide the

opportunity to enhance an individual’s task-relevant knowledge and strategies,

achieve valued outcomes, and, in turn, promote self-efficacy and outcome expec-

tations within a dynamic, skill development cycle. Although this model details

person-level (e.g., cognitive, motivational) processes, it bears repeating that peo-

ple develop their talents, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and goals within a

larger sociocultural context. As shown in Figure 5.2, the learning experiences to

which people are exposed and the performance outcomes they receive are inti-

mately related to features of their environments, such as educational quality, na-

ture of available role models, parenting style, gender role socialization, peer

supports, and community and family norms.

It should also be emphasized that self-efficacy is seen as complementing—not

substituting for—objectively assessed ability in SCCT’s performance model. Com-

plex performances are aided not only by abilities but also by an optimistic sense of

efficacy, which helps people organize, orchestrate, and make the most of their tal-

ents. What people can accomplish depends partly on how they interpret and apply

their skills, helping to explain why two individuals with similar objective capabil-

ities can achieve performances that vary greatly in quality (Bandura, 1986). People

who doubt their capabilities may, for instance, be less likely to deploy their skills

effectively or to remain focused and perseverant when problems arise.

Might we conclude, then, that higher self-efficacy is always a good thing? In

fact, the effects of self-efficacy may depend on how high or low it is in relation to

current levels of objective ability. People may encounter problems when they

greatly misconstrue their capabilities in either the positive or the negative direc-

tion. Self-efficacy beliefs that greatly overestimate current capabilities (overconfi-

dence, in colloquial terms) may encourage people to attempt tasks for which they

are ill-prepared, risking failure and discouragement. Self-efficacy that seriously

underestimates documented ability (i.e., underconfidence) may interfere with per-

formance by prompting less effort and perseverance, lower goals, greater perfor-

mance anxiety, and avoidance of realistic challenges. Both types of misconstrual

may hamper skill development. By contrast, self-efficacy that slightly overshoots

but is reasonably congruent with current capabilities (slight overconfidence) pro-

motes optimal skill use and motivation for further skill development.

RESEARCH ON SOCIAL COGNITIVE

CAREER THEORY

The central variables and predictions of SCCT have attracted a good deal of re-

search in recent years. A full-scale review of research generated by, or relevant to,

SCCT is beyond the scope of this chapter, though some of the major research

trends and findings can be summarized here. Several more thorough reviews

(e.g., Bandura, 1997; Swanson & Gore, 2000) and meta-analyses (e.g., Lent et al.,

1994; Sadri & Robertson, 1993; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998) of this literature may

c05.qxd 8/5/04 9:00 AM Page 112

A Social Cognitive View of Career Development and Counseling 113

be consulted for in-depth analysis of research linking social cognitive theory to

career development processes and outcomes. In this section, I first consider the

theory’s overall empirical status and then discuss selected applications of SCCT

to the career behavior of diverse clientele.

ARGER

RENDS AND

INDINGS

A substantial body of findings suggests that social cognitive variables aid under-

standing of educational and career behavior during the preparatory, transition

(e.g., school-to-work, work change), and postentry (work adjustment) phases of ca-

reer development. Among the social cognitive variables, self-efficacy has received

the most attention, with traditional qualitative research reviews concluding:

•

Domain-specific measures of self-efficacy are predictive of career-related

interests, choice, achievement, persistence, indecision, and exploratory

behavior.

•Intervention, experimental, and path-analytic studies support certain hy-

pothesized causal relations among measures of self-efficacy, performance,

and interests.

•Gender differences in self-efficacy help to explain male-female differences

in occupational consideration (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Hackett, 1995; Hackett &

Lent, 1992; Swanson & Gore, 2000).

Meta-analytic reviews provide a helpful, quantitative way to integrate findings

from a large number of independent studies, allowing conclusions about the

strength of hypothesized relationships across all studies that have addressed par-

ticular hypotheses. Several meta-analyses of research, primarily involving late

adolescents and young adults, have directly tested a number of SCCT’s hypothe-

ses. Meta-analysis of the interest hypotheses, for instance, indicates that self-

efficacy and outcome expectations are each good predictors of occupational

interests and that, as predicted, the relation of ability to interests appears to op-

erate through (or be mediated by) self-efficacy (Lent et al., 1994; see Figures 5.1

and 5.2). A recent meta-analysis of 53 samples, including more than 37,000 re-

search participants, confirmed that there is a strong overall relationship between

self-efficacy and career interests (r = 0.59; Rottinghaus et al., 2003).

Meta-analysis of SCCT’s choice hypotheses has shown that career-related

choices are strongly predicted by interests (r = 0.60; Lent et al., 1994). Self-efficacy

and outcome expectations also relate to career choice both directly and indirectly,

through their linkage to interests (see Figure 5.2; Lent et al., 1994). A recent set of

studies has examined the manner in which perceived environmental supports and

barriers relate to the choice process. Although this work has not yet been meta-

analyzed, the majority of findings suggest that, rather than relating directly to

choice outcomes, the primary role of these environmental variables may be to

strengthen or weaken self-efficacy beliefs, which, in turn, promote interest and

choice (e.g., Lent, Brown, Nota, & Soresi, 2003; Lent, Brown, Schmidt, et al., 2003).

Meta-analysis of SCCT’s performance model predictions have focused on the

linkage of self-efficacy to various indicators of performance. Findings have shown

that self-efficacy is a useful predictor of both academic (Multon, Brown, & Lent,

1991) and occupational (Sadri & Robertson, 1993; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998)

c05.qxd 8/5/04 9:00 AM Page 113

114 M

AJOR

HEORIES OF

AREER

EVELOPMENT

, C

HOICE

AND

DJUSTMENT

performance and that certain factors affect the strength of the self-efficacy-

performance relationship. For instance, self-efficacy tends to be more strongly re-

lated to performance in older versus younger students and in low-achieving versus

adequately achieving students (Multon et al., 1991). In addition, consistent with

theory, ability has been linked to performance outcomes both directly and indi-

rectly, through intervening self-efficacy beliefs (Lent et al., 1994; see Figure 5.3).

Finally, meta-analysis has been used to examine the sources of information, or

learning experiences, from which self-efficacy beliefs are assumed to derive (see

Figure 5.2). Of the four primary sources (prior performance accomplishments, vi-

carious learning, social persuasion, physiological and affective states), perfor-

mance accomplishments (e.g., indicators of a person’s previous success or failure)

typically show the strongest relation to self-efficacy within a particular perfor-

mance domain. Self-efficacy is, in turn, a good predictor of outcome expectations

(Lent et al., 1994). As discussed in a later section, such findings offer useful im-

plications for the design of interventions to promote self-efficacy and outcome ex-

pectations and, in turn, subsequent career outcomes.

Collectively, the meta-analyses are consistent with theoretical assumptions that:

•Interests relate strongly to self-efficacy and outcome expectations.

•A person’s ability or performance accomplishments are likely to lead to in-

terests in a particular domain to the extent that they foster a growing sense

of self-efficacy in that domain.

•Self-efficacy and outcome expectations relate to career-related choices

largely (though not completely) through their linkage to interest.

•Past performance promotes future performance partly through people’s

abilities and partly through their self-efficacy, which can aid them to orga-

nize their skills and persist despite setbacks.

•Self-efficacy appears to derive most strongly from past performance accom-

plishments but is also responsive to vicarious learning, social encourage-

ment and discouragement, and affective and physiological states.

PPLICATIONS TO

IVERSE

OPULATIONS

This section cites examples of work applying social cognitive variables to the career

development of women and particular groups of minority persons. Social Cognitive

Career Theory was designed to aid understanding of the career development of a

diverse array of students and workers, taking into account factors such as race/

ethnicity, culture, gender, socioeconomic status, age, and disability status. The ear-

liest effort to extend social cognitive theory to career behavior focused on how the

self-efficacy concept might illuminate women’s career development. Hackett and

Betz (1981) noted, for example, that gender role socialization processes tend to pro-

vide girls and young women with biased access to the four sources of efficacy

information (e.g., gender-traditional role models, differential encouragement to

pursue culturally prescribed activities). Such experiences nurture self-efficacy for

traditionally female activities but may limit self-efficacy in nontraditional career

domains.

In testing their thesis, Betz and Hackett (1981) found that college women re-

ported stronger self-efficacy for performing occupations that are traditionally

dominated by women than by men and that these beliefs were linked to their

c05.qxd 8/5/04 9:00 AM Page 114

A Social Cognitive View of Career Development and Counseling 115

terests in and consideration of traditional and nontraditional choice options.

Other research has shown that self-efficacy beliefs help to explain gender differ-

ences in scientific/technical field interests (e.g., Lapan, Boggs, & Morrill, 1989).

Studies using general samples of students often find sex differences in self-

efficacy as to gender-typed tasks and fields (e.g., mathematics); differences in

self-efficacy are less likely to emerge, however, in samples of women and men

who have had comparable efficacy-building experiences with such tasks (Hackett

& Lent, 1992).

These sorts of findings suggest that women’s career pursuits can be con-

stricted or expanded by the learning environments to which they are exposed

and, in particular, by the nature of the self-efficacy beliefs that such exposure en-

ables. As Bandura (1997) has observed, “cultural constraints, inequitable incen-

tive systems, and truncated opportunity structures are...influential in shaping

women’s career development” (p. 436). Thus, self-beliefs are embedded within a

complex web of systemic processes. While this analysis suggests some daunting

environmental obstacles to women’s career development, it also implies several

developmental and preventative routes for redressing socially imposed limita-

tions. Such routes include, for example, educating parents and teachers about the

educational and occupational implications of gender-typed efficacy development

and about ways to foster self-efficacy and support systems, thereby enabling chil-

dren to acquire (and profit from) performance experiences in as wide a range of

activity domains as possible. Indeed, consistent with Gottfredson’s (Chapter 4,

this volume) theory, exposure to and experience with non-gender-stereotypic ac-

tivities may need to be provided relatively early in children’s lives to preserve the

maximum number of options for later educational and career consideration (also

see Rojewski, Chapter 6, this volume).

Similar social-cognitive dynamics have been discussed in relation to the career

development of persons of color. Hackett and Byars (1996) noted, for example,

how culturally based exposure to sources of efficacy information (e.g., social en-

couragement to pursue certain options, experience with racism, role modeling)

may differentially affect African American women’s career self-efficacy beliefs,

outcome expectations, goals, and subsequent career progress. Hackett and Byars

suggested theory-based methods, such as developmental interventions, social ad-

vocacy, and collective action, to promote the career growth of African American

women. In other work, applications of SCCT’s basic interest and choice models to

Hispanic, Black, and Asian American student samples have found support for the

cross-cultural relevance of these models (e.g., Fouad & Smith, 1996; Gainor &

Lent, 1998; Tang, Fouad, & Smith, 1999).

Social Cognitive Career Theory has also been extended, conceptually or empir-

ically, to a number of other client populations. For instance, Szymanski, Enright,

Hershenson, and Ettinger (2003) considered self-efficacy and outcome expecta-

tions as useful constructs in understanding the career development of persons

with disabilities, and Fabian (2000) discussed how SCCT could be used to derive

career interventions specifically for adults with psychiatric disabilities. Social

Cognitive Career Theory has also been suggested as a useful framework for un-

derstanding certain career processes in gay and lesbian workers (Morrow et al.

1996). Finally, the theory has been employed in a number of cross-cultural and in-

ternational applications (e.g., de Bruin, 1999; Kantas, 1997; Lent, Brown, Nota, &

Soresi, 2003; Van Vianen, 1999).

c05.qxd 8/5/04 9:00 AM Page 115