career identity development stringer & kerpelman, 2010

This article was downloaded by: [Central U Library of Bucharest]On: 27 February 2013, At: 04:41Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Identity: An InternationalJournal of Theory andResearchPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hidn20

Career Identity Developmentin College Students: DecisionMaking, Parental Support, andWork ExperienceKate J. Stringer a & Jennifer L. Kerpelman aa Auburn UniversityVersion of record first published: 12 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Kate J. Stringer & Jennifer L. Kerpelman (2010): Career IdentityDevelopment in College Students: Decision Making, Parental Support, and WorkExperience, Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 10:3, 181-200

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2010.496102

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liablefor any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hidn20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2010.496102

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

04:

41 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

Career Identity Development in CollegeStudents: Decision Making, Parental

Support, and Work Experience

Kate J. StringerJennifer L. Kerpelman

Auburn University

Identity exploration in the area of work is theorized to be salient in emerging adult-hood, and according to Vondracek’s extensions of Erikson’s theory, self-realizationmay be achieved through integration of career choice into one’s identity. The presentstudy aimed to address the extent to which parental support for career, work experi-ence, and career decision self-efficacy influenced career identity evaluation in a sam-ple of 345 students attending a 4-year college. Structural equation modeling resultssupported the hypothesized associations, showing that career decision self-efficacy(suggestive of commitment making) was associated with career identity evaluation.In addition, the number of jobs held was found to be more predictive of career deci-sion self-efficacy and career identity evaluation than were perceptions of relevantwork experience. Overall, results were consistent with the Luyckx and colleagues’process model of identity development.

Emerging adulthood is a unique period in the life span and is characterized as atime of identity exploration with decisions being made in the areas of work, self,and love (Arnett, 2000). Identity exploration sets the foundation for commitmentsmade during emerging adulthood and the years that follow, and it is during emerg-ing adulthood that considerable identity exploration and commitments in the ca-reer domain occur, especially for college students. This period of exploration, inpart, is due to the institutionalized moratorium (i.e., support for delaying decisionmaking) of the college context (Côté, 2006; Erikson, 1968). However, prolonged,

Identity: An International Journal of Theoryand Research, 10:181–200, 2010Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1528-3488 print/1532-706X onlineDOI: 10.1080/15283488.2010.496102

Address correspondence to Kate J. Stringer, HCHCTY, Center for Children, Youth and Families,Auburn University, 203 Spidle Hall, Auburn, AL 36849. E-mail: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

04:

41 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

unfocused exploration delays commitments and can be maladaptive (Meeus,Iedema, Helsen, & Vollebergh, 1999). Although there has been extensive researchon identity processes and their development (e.g., Luyckx, Goossens, & Soenens,2005, 2006), there has been only limited examination of the career domain. Iden-tity development in the career domain is especially important during the collegeyears, given the emphasis placed on career preparation. Therefore, the presentstudy aimed to investigate factors that influence career identity commitmentamong 4-year-college students.

Research has suggested that identity commitments are important to individuals’well-being and emotional adjustment (Berzonsky, 2003; Kunnen, Sappa, vanGeert, & Bonica, 2008; Meeus, Iedema, Maassen, & Engels, 2005). Kunnen et al.found that trajectories of identity formation without commitment were morestrongly associated with worse adjustment than those without exploration. Morespecific to the career domain, identity commitments in this domain have been as-sociated positively with stability in career choices and satisfaction with work(Kidd & Green, 2004; Perrone, Ægisdóttir, Webb, & Blalock, 2006). Vondracek(1995) asserted that individuals can experience self-realization through vocationalcareers. Similar to Waterman’s (1990) description of personal expressivenessthrough one’s identity commitments, self-realization is the belief that one is reach-ing one’s full potential (Vondracek). Experiencing self-realization through a voca-tional career is likely to happen when decisions about a career are based on whoone is (i.e., on the basis of interests, abilities, talents, and personality) and when ca-reer identity is integrated into one’s sense of self.

Although career identity development is a process that consists of explorationand commitment (Skorikov & Vondracek, 2007), Skorikov and Vondracek foundthat the Vocational Identity Scale of the My Vocational Situation measure (Hol-land, Daiger, & Power, 1980) did not distinguish between the foreclosed andachieved statuses. Therefore, the Vocational Identity Scale did not account for ca-reer identity exploration. Measures such as the Extended Objective Measure ofEgo Identity Status-2 (Adams, Bennion, & Huh, 1989), which were developed todistinguish between the foreclosed and achieved statuses, account for explorationand commitment, but have very few items focusing on the career identity domain.In addition, further work by Luyckx et al. (2005, 2006) showed that there weremultiple dimensions of exploration and commitment that should be accounted forwhen assessing domains of identity development.

On the basis of Marcia’s (1966) identity status paradigm, Stephen, Fraser, andMarcia (1992) presented a process model whereby individuals continue to developtheir identities through a process of repeated moratorium and achievement cycles.This suggests that individuals do not just achieve their identities, but they alsomake commitments and then must engage in continued exploration to maintaintheir commitments. In support of this, Bosma (1985) found that there was a dis-tinction between individuals who made identity commitments and those who went

182 STRINGER AND KERPELMAN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

04:

41 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

further to identify with their commitments. In addition, Meeus et al. (1999) pro-vided evidence that foreclosure and achievement are both adaptive in terms of theirassociations with well-being, and they proposed that youth continually reconsidertheir identity commitments through continued in-depth exploration of the commit-ment. It is this in-depth exploration that distinguishes the “closure” and “achiev-ing” identity statuses. Collectively, there is strong evidence to support the impor-tance of commitment processes to identity formation. Luyckx et al. (2005, 2006)identified two cycles involved in the identity development process: commitmentformation (i.e., exploration in breadth and decision making) and commitment eval-uation (i.e., exploration in depth and identification with commitment). It is duringthis second process that identity commitments become more firm and integratedinto a person’s sense of identity. Luyckx et al. (2005, 2006) found that the commit-ment formation process was associated with the commitment evaluation process inthe student and relationship identity domains, but they did not test associationsamong these processes in the career domain.

Luyckx et al.’s (2005, 2006) framework provides a basis for how individuals in-tegrate career into their overall identities. The present study also is guided byVondracek’s (1995) developmental-contextual perspective on achieving self-real-ization through vocational careers. This perspective suggests that career identitydevelopment during emerging adulthood is influenced by a number of importantfactors, such as career-decision self-efficacy, support for career from parents, andpast work experiences that inform one’s career goals.

CAREER DECISION SELF-EFFICACY

Past researchhasshownthatan importantpredictorof in-depthcareer identityexplo-ration and internalizing of identity commitments is career decision self-efficacy(Brown & Lavish, 2006; Chung, 2002; Lucas, 1997; Porfeli & Skorikov, in press).Career decision self-efficacy is defined as having confidence in oneself to make de-cisions about a career on the basis of information about the self, goals, and career op-tions (Betz, Klein, & Taylor, 1996). Career decision self-efficacy includes the fol-lowing dimensions: (a) accurate self-appraisal (being realistic about one’s skills,abilities, strengths), (b) problem solving (ability to deal with problems related to ca-reer decisions), (c) planning (having a plan for ways to obtain career goals), goal se-lection (having goals), and (d) gathering occupational information (seeking infor-mation about occupations available). These dimensions reflect aspects of careerdecision making that are particularly important for making career decisions on thebasis of exploration of the self and careers available (Betz et al.). Studies have sug-gested that career decision self-efficacy is associated positively with career identityevaluation (Brown & Lavish; Lucas; Porfeli & Skorikov) and work commitment(Chung).Forexample, inasampleofuniversitystudents,Lucas found thatcareerde-

CAREER IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 183

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

04:

41 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

cision self-efficacy was associated with career decidedness and career exploration,and these associations were similar for men and women. Likewise, in another studyof undergraduate college students, career decision self-efficacy predicted careercommitment (i.e., career giving meaning to one’s life) for both men and women(Chung). Also, in a longitudinal study of high school students, Porfeli and Skorikovfound that linear change in, and the average score of, career confidence was associ-ated with linear change in, and the average score of, career exploration in depth (spe-cific career exploration). Career indecision, which is highly associated with careerdecision self-efficacy (e.g., Osipow & Gati, 1998), also was shown to be associatednegatively with career identity commitment in a sample of Australian high schoolstudents (Creed & Patton, 2003). On the basis of the extant literature, we predictedthatcareerdecisionself-efficacywouldbepositivelyassociatedwith thecareer iden-tity evaluation process, and there would be no gender differences in the associationof career decision self-efficacy and career identity evaluation.

PARENTAL SUPPORT FOR CAREER

Well before they leave for college, children receive messages from their parents re-garding how they should think about their future careers. Research has shown thatparental support for career (Alliman-Brissett, Turner, & Skovholt, 2004;Berrios-Allison, 2005) as well as general support from parents (Constantine,Wallace, & Kindaichi, 2005; Leal-Muniz & Constantine, 2005; Lucas, 1997) arepositively associated with identity commitment and career decision-making confi-dence in both high school and college samples.

Leal-Muniz and Constantine (2005) found that perceived parental support posi-tively predicted career identity commitment and negatively predicted the tendencyto foreclose prematurely on career options in a sample of Mexican American collegestudents. In samples of high school sophomores and seniors (Sartor & Youniss,2002) and college students (Berrios-Allison, 2005) general parental support andidentity commitment were positively associated. Parental support in the area of ca-reer has been found to be positively associated with career decision self-efficacy andcareer choice certainty in samples of early adolescents (Alliman-Brissett et al.,2004) and high school juniors and seniors (Constantine et al., 2005).

Alliman-Brissett et al. (2004) examined four dimensions of parental support forcareer: (a) career-related modeling (exposure to parental work role), (b) verbal en-couragement (promoting participation in educational and career-related activities),(c) instrumental assistance (guiding educational and career decisions) and (d) emo-tional support (e.g., talking with the child about his or her goals). They found that thedifferent types of parental support for career predicted career decision self-efficacyfor African American men and women. For men, career-related modeling was thebest predictor of career decision self-efficacy, whereas for women, emotional sup-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

04:

41 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

port was the best predictor of career decision self-efficacy. These results suggest thatthere may be gender differences in the association between parental support for ca-reer and career decisions self-efficacy. Concerning gender differences, Sartor andYouniss (2002) also found that the association between parental support and identityachievement was stronger for men than for women. Given findings linking parentalsupportandcareerdecisionself-efficacy/careerdecision-makingandcareer identitycommitment, itwaspredicted thatparental support forcareerwouldbepositivelyas-sociatedwithcareerdecisionmakingandcareer identityevaluationforbothmenandwomen. The association between parental support and career decision self-efficacymay be stronger for women; whereas, the association between parental support andcareer identity evaluation may be stronger for men.

WORK EXPERIENCE

Havingworkexperiences thatare relevant tocareerchoicecanprovideopportunitiesfor career exploration. Most research that has examined work experience and careerdecision-making has been conducted on Australian samples. Findings from this re-search suggest that individuals who had made a career decision were more likely tohave had work experience (Creed, Prideaux, & Patton, 2005) and had worked longerthan those who had not made a career decision (Earl & Bright, 2003). In one of thefew studies of U.S. college students, having work experiences that were perceived asrelevant to one’s career choice were associated with being ready to make decisionsabout career, controlling for participant gender and length of time spent at a job(Ohler, Levinson, & Barker, 1996). Most other research with U.S. samples has ex-amined volume of hours worked by high school students and associations with aca-demic achievement, school misconduct, and drug and alcohol use (for a review, seeZimmerman-Gemback & Mortimer, 2006). Given the paucity of studies that haveexamined college students’ past and current work experiences and the relevance ofthese experiences to career identity formation, the present study explored whetherperceptionsof relevantworkexperienceor thenumberof jobsapersonhadheldmat-tered more for explaining confidence to make career decisions and career identityevaluation in an U.S. college sample. In other words, does having experiences withwork that one perceives as relevant to one’s future career or does having a variety ofwork experiences help emerging adults develop confidence to choose their careersand to make stronger commitments to their career identities?

SUMMARY AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

Research has shown that identity commitments are important to individuals’well-being, adjustment, and satisfaction. Emerging adults’ career decision-mak-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

04:

41 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

ing has been associated with parental support. In turn, both parental support andcareer decision making have been associated with career identity commitment.Career decision making also has been associated with having work experience.Because having work experiences can serve as a form of career exploration, itwas predicted that work experiences would be associated with the career identityevaluation process. The literature has found evidence to suggest that there are nogender differences in the association between career decision self-efficacy andcareer identity evaluation, but that there are differences in the associations be-tween parental support for career and career decision self-efficacy and careeridentity evaluation.

The purpose of the present study was to investigate career identity evaluation(i.e., career identity exploration in depth and identification with career identitycommitment) in college students by examining the associations between careeridentity evaluation and career decision self-efficacy, parental support for career,and work experience (both perceived relevant work experience and number of jobsheld). The aim of the present study was to understand factors that help explain thedeepening of career identity commitment.

For the present study, work experience was included as an indicator of the di-mension of exploration in breadth. Past work experience represents one aspect ofexploration in breadth by providing opportunities to consider different aspects ofthe world of work. Career decision self-efficacy (i.e., the confidence to make ca-reer decisions; Betz et al., 1996) was chosen to represent commitment making be-cause college students may not be fully decided about their careers, but they are inthe process of making and then exploring their career choices. On the basis of find-ings of Luyckx et al. (2005, 2006), we predicted that career decision self-efficacywould be positively associated with career identity evaluation. One unique featureof the career decision self-efficacy measure chosen for this study is that it exam-ines self-efficacy to choose a career on the basis of accurate self-appraisal, goals,planning, problem solving, and occupational information available. In otherwords, as individuals become more confident about making career decisions on thebasis of their exploration in breadth, it was expected that they would explore theircareer choices more in depth and anticipate identifying with their career choices.For the present study, parental support for career was defined as perceived parentalsupport while growing up, before entering college, and career identity evaluationwas a combination of exploring career in depth and anticipating identification withcareer identity commitment.

Building on findings in extant literature in the areas of career identity evaluationand career decision self-efficacy/making, the present study had the following ob-jectives (see Figure 1 for the hypothesized model):

1. To test a model in which (a) parental support for career and work experi-ence predicted career decision self-efficacy and (b) parental support for ca-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

04:

41 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

reer and work experience and career decision self-efficacy predicted careeridentity evaluation.

2. To test the importance of number of jobs held and perceptions of relevantwork experience in predicting career decision self-efficacy and careeridentity evaluation.

3. To explore gender differences in the hypothesized model.

METHOD

Sample and Procedures

Data were collected from students attending a land grant, 4-year university in theSoutheastern United States. They were recruited from large sections of courses onhuman development and family studies. Participants completed surveys outside ofclass and received extra credit in exchange for participation. The surveys took ap-proximately 20 to 30 minutes to complete and were returned the next class day(i.e., 2 days later). Of approximately 375 surveys that we distributed, a total of 349were returned. Of these, 345 were used for analyses (four surveys were completedby individuals older than 25 when the recruitment was specified for those ages 18to 25). Of the 345 participants (34.2% male, 63.8% female), the majority of stu-dents (91.1%) were Caucasian, and ages ranged from 18 to 25 years (M = 20.61,SD = 1.29). The sample consisted of 11.3% freshmen, 34.8% sophomores, 26.4%juniors, and 24.6% seniors (2.9% did not report their undergraduate level). Mostparticipants (85.7%) were raised in two-parent, first marriage families with up-per-middle class incomes. Of the participants, 97.7% reported that they were cur-rently seeking a 4-year bachelor’s degree and 2.3% reported that they were cur-rently seeking an “other” type of degree (e.g., 5-year master’s degree).


FIGURE 1 Hypothesized model predicting career identity evaluation (aperceived relevantwork experience and number of jobs held will be compared).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

04:

41 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

Measures

We assessed career identity evaluation using the Utrecht-Management of IdentityCommitments Scale (Crocetti, Rubini, & Meeus, 2008). The Utrecht-Managementof Identity Commitments Scale assesses identification with commitment (fiveitems), exploration in depth (five items), and reconsideration of commitment(three items). In the present study, we used the identification-with-commitmentand exploration-in-depth subscales. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scaleranging from 1 (completely untrue) to 5 (completely true). Higher scores yieldgreater identification with commitment and greater exploration in depth. Itemswere adjusted to refer to the career domain. Because of the design of the study,items also were adjusted to assess anticipated identification with career identitycommitment (e.g., “My career will give me certainty in life”) because participantshad not fully entered their occupational careers. The exploration-in-depth itemswere worded in present tense (e.g., “I think a lot about my career).” Internal consis-tency in two different samples for identification with commitment (�s = .89 and.93) and for exploration in depth (�s = .84 and .89) have been good (Crocetti et al.,2008). The two scales served as indicators of the latent factor, career identity eval-uation. In the present study, reliability was .87 for identification with career iden-tity commitment and .83 for career identity exploration in depth.

We measured career decision self-efficacy using the Career Decision Self-Effi-cacy Short Form (Betz et al., 1996), which consists of 25 items that are rated on a5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (no confidence at all) to 5 (complete con-fidence). Higher scores indicate higher confidence in dealing with career-relatedtasks. There are five subscales containing five items each: accurate self-appraisal(“Choose a major or career that will fit your interests”), gathering occupational in-formation (“Identify employers, firms, and institutions relevant to your career pos-sibilities”), goal selection (“Decide what you value most in an occupation“), mak-ing plans (“Make a plan of your goals for the next five years”), and problemsolving (“Change majors if you did not like your first choice”). Internal consis-tency for the total scale has been found to be .94 (Betz et al.) and has ranged be-tween .95 and .97 (Gloria & Hird, 1999). Internal consistency for the subscales hasbeen demonstrated, and construct validity has been supported in previous studies(see Taylor & Betz, 1983). For the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .74 for oc-cupational information, .80 for goal selection, .77 for planning, .75 for problemsolving, and .75 for accurate self-appraisal. These five subscales served as indica-tors for the latent factor of career decision self-efficacy.

We assessed parental support for career using the four subscales of the Ca-reer-Related Parent Support Scale (Turner, Alliman-Brissett, Lapan, Udipi, &Erugun, 2003): instrumental assistance (e.g., help and guidance about educational/career-related decisions and tasks), career-related modeling (e.g., exposure to pa-rental work environment and/or work role), verbal encouragement (e.g., encour-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

04:

41 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

agement and expectations to participate in activities that help accomplish educa-tional/career goals), and emotional support (e.g., talking about child’s interests andeducational/career goals). The subscales consist of seven items except the verbalencouragement subscale, which has six items. Items are rated on a 5-pointLikert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Internalconsistency estimates ranged from .78 to .85, and good test–retest reliability over a2-week period has been demonstrated (Turner et al.). For the present study, internalconsistency estimates were .81 for instrumental assistance, .78 for career-relatedmodeling, .89 for verbal encouragement, and .85 for emotional support. Itemswere asked in retrospect with the prompt, “Thinking about growing up in yourfamily of origin’s home, answer the following questions.” These four subscalesserved as indicators for the latent factor of parental support for career.

We assessed work experience by adapting a portion of the Work Status Ques-tionnaire (Nurmi & Salmela-Aro, 1995), which was designed to determine howmuch a job is commensurate with one’s education, after graduating from college.The portion of the Work Status Questionnaire included in the present study askedparticipants to write down all the jobs they had had, including internships and vol-unteer work. For each job, they were asked to evaluate the extent to which it was ajob that was commensurate with their earlier education, on a 3-point scale, with“0” representing no, “1” representing to some extent, and “2” representing yes. Forthe present study, this question was adapted by asking participants to evaluate theextent to which the skills learned/used at each job were relevant for their careerchoice on a 3-point scale, with “0” representing not relevant, “1” representingsomewhat relevant, and “2” representing relevant. We calculated relevant work ex-perience scores by taking the mean of all work experience relevance ratings;higher scores indicated more relevant work experience. We calculated number ofjobs by summing the number of jobs participants reported having.

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses

Before testing the study hypotheses, we calculated the means and standard devi-ations (see Table 1). The sample was relatively high in levels of identificationwith commitment, exploration in depth, career decision self-efficacy, and paren-tal support for career. On average, participants had jobs that were somewhat rel-evant with their anticipated careers and the average of number of jobs held was2.58 (SD = 1.71).

We conducted independent samples t tests to test for gender differences for themean levels of the variables in the present study. Results revealed that there weresignificant gender differences on all variables except identification with career


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

04:

41 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

identity commitment, career identity exploration in depth, and three subscales ofthe Career Decision Self-Efficacy Short Form (i.e., goal selection, planning, andproblem solving; see Table 1). Although men and women differed in their meanlevels for many of the variables in the hypothesized model, what remains a ques-tion is whether gender moderates the associations among the variables. Therefore,we examined gender differences using multiple group analysis when testing thehypothesized models. We also examined age differences using a one-way analysisof variance, and participants were significantly different in their number of jobsheld depending on age. The effect of age was controlled by residualizing the num-ber of jobs on age.

Bivariate Associations

Examination of the zero-order correlations (see Table 2) indicated that the hypoth-esized relations were supported with the exception of the association between per-ceived relevant work experience and the indicators of career identity evaluation.Furthermore, relevant work experience only correlated significantly with two ofthe career decision self-efficacy subscales (i.e., planning and self-appraisal).

Measurement Model

We tested a measurement model for the latent variables using structural equationmodeling in AMOS 16.0 (Arbuckle, 2007). For missing data, AMOS uses maxi-


TABLE 1Means and Standard Deviations

Full sample Male Female

Variable M SD M SD M SD

Relevant work experience*** 1.01 0.69 0.83 0.70 1.10 0.66Number of jobs*** 2.58 1.71 2.05 1.54 2.86 1.74Identification with career identity commitment 4.10 0.67 4.09 0.68 4.10 0.67Exploration in depth 3.96 0.75 3.87 0.74 4.01 0.75Occupational information** 4.01 0.61 3.88 0.64 4.08 0.70Goal selection 3.82 0.63 3.77 0.62 3.85 0.64Planning 3.88 0.65 3.79 0.68 3.93 0.62Problem solving 3.71 0.64 3.63 0.69 3.78 0.62Self-appraisal* 3.97 0.57 3.88 0.54 4.01 0.56Instrumental assistance*** 3.90 0.74 3.64 0.76 4.03 0.70Career-related modeling*** 4.19 0.78 3.96 0.79 4.31 0.74Verbal encouragement*** 4.45 0.63 4.15 0.75 4.61 0.49Emotional support*** 3.84 0.80 3.54 0.79 3.99 0.77

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001; indicates significant gender differences

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

04:

41 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

191

TAB

LE2

Cor

rela

tions

( N=

345)

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1.W

ork

Rel

evan

ce—

2.N

umbe

rof

Jobs

.24*

**—

3.Id

ent.

w/C

om.

.09

.13*

—4.

Exp

lor.

inD

epth

.09

.15*

*.2

4***

—5.

Occ

up.I

nfo.

.07

.12*

.24*

**.3

5***

—6.

Goa

lSel

ectio

n.0

9.1

3*.2

2***

.22*

**.6

1***

—7.

Plan

ning

.20*

**.1

9***

.25*

**.3

7***

.69*

**.6

5***

—8.

Prob

lem

Solv

ing

.08

.01

.19*

**.2

8***

.58*

**.6

3***

.72*

**—

9.Se

lf-a

ppra

isal

.16*

*.1

7**

.26*

**.2

9***

.62*

**.7

1***

.70*

**.7

1***

—10

.Ins

tr.A

ssis

tanc

e.0

7.0

0.0

8.2

1***

.19*

**.2

2***

.25*

**.2

7***

.27*

**—

11.C

aree

rM

odel

ing

.10

.05

.17*

*.2

8***

.32*

**.2

9***

.36*

**.3

0***

.23*

**.5

3***

—12

.Ver

balE

nc.

.03

.06

.12*

.17*

*.2

9***

.21*

**.2

7***

.24*

**.2

9***

.60*

**.5

3***

—13

.Em

otio

nalS

up.

.05

.03

.15*

*.2

4***

.24*

**.1

8***

.23*

**.2

3***

.19*

**.6

8***

.55*

**.5

6***

Not

e.C

aree

rId

entit

yE

valu

atio

n:ite

ms

3–4

Car

eer

Dec

isio

nSe

lf-E

ffic

acy:

item

s5–

9Pa

rent

alSu

ppor

tfor

Car

eer:

item

s10

–13

*p<

.05,

**p

<.0

1,**

*p<

.001

.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

04:

41 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

mum likelihood estimation. Several indicators of the fit of the model to the datawere used. If the �

2 is nonsignificant, this indicates that there is a good fit; how-ever, �

2 is sensitive to sample size and is likely to be significant. Other fit indiceswe examined were the chi-square/df, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and the compara-tive fit index (CFI). For the chi-square/df, values lower than 3 are acceptable(Byrne, 2001, p. 81). For the TLI and CFI, values between .90 and .95 reflect ac-ceptable fit, and values greater than .95 reflect good fit (Bentler, 1990; Bollen,1989). Last, we used the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) to es-timate the lack of fit in the model compared with a saturated model. An RMSEA< .08 indicates an acceptable fit; good fit is indicated by an RMSEA < .05 (Browne& Cudeck, 1993; Byrne, 2001).

Confirmatory factor analysis results showed that the factors loaded as expected(see Table 3). Significant, positive correlations (p < .001) also were found amongthe latent constructs (see Table 4). Although the chi-square was significant, �

2(41)


TABLE 3Factor Loadings for the Measurement Model

Variable Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

1. Parental support for careerEmotional support .78***Verbal encouragement .67***Career-related modeling .66***Instrumental assistance .80***

2. Career decision self-efficacyAccurate self-appraisal .85***Problem solving .81***Planning .85***Goal selection .80***Gathering occupational information .75***

3. Career identity evaluationIdentification with career identity commitment .41***Career identity exploration in depth .56***

***p < .001.

TABLE 4Factor Correlations

Variable 1 2

1. Parental support for career —2. Career decision self-efficacy .37*** —3. Career identity evaluation .46*** .68***

***p < .001.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

04:

41 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

= 87.14, p < .001; �2/df = 2.13, the TLI (.96), CFI (.97), and RMSEA (.06, p = .23)

all indicated that the model fit the data adequately.

Hypothesis Testing

Two models were fit using structural equation modeling. The first model containedperceived relevant work experience, and the second contained number of jobsheld. Results revealed that in the first model, relevant work experience was associ-ated neither with career decision self-efficacy nor with career identity evaluation.In this model, all other paths were significant (see Figure 2). Although thechi-square was significant, �

2(50) = 97.84, p < .001, the �2/df = (1.96), the TLI

(.96), CFI (.97), and RMSEA (.05, p = .37) all indicated that the model fit the datawell. Next, the second model containing number of jobs held was fit. In this model,all paths were significant, including the paths from number of jobs held to careeridentity evaluation and career decision self-efficacy (Figure 3). Although thechi-square was significant, �

2(50) = 93.53, p < .001), the �2/df = (1.87), the TLI

(.97), CFI (.98), and RMSEA (.05, p = .47) all indicated that the model fit the datawell. These fit indices suggested a slightly better fit than the model containing rele-vant work experience; in addition, number of jobs was a significant predictor of theidentity process variables, whereas perceived relevance of work experience wasnot. Therefore, results indicated that number of jobs was a better predictor of ca-reer decision self-efficacy and career identity evaluation than was perceived rele-vant work experience.

Gender Differences

The present study aimed to test gender differences in the hypothesized model.First, we examined gender differences in the measurement model. Results frommultiple group analyses using a delta chi-square test in which measurement mod-


FIGURE 2 Final model predicting career identity evaluation with perceived relevant work ex-perience (values are standardized path coefficients; *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

04:

41 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

els were compared showed that for women, identification with career identitycommitment loaded significantly higher as an indicator of career identity evalua-tion than it did for men (path coefficient for men = .38, p < .001; path coefficientfor women = .46, p < .001). When the hypothesized model was compared for menand women, multiple group analyses showed that there were no hypothesizedpaths in the model that were significantly different for men and women. Therefore,results suggested that identification with career identity commitment may be astronger indicator of career identity evaluation for women than for men. However,the structural associations among the variables in the model are similar for menand women.

DISCUSSION

The findings of the present study showed that parental support for career and num-ber of jobs held predicted career decision self-efficacy and career identity evalua-tion. Career decision self-efficacy also predicted career identity evaluation. Al-though mean differences for these variables were found for men and women, thestrength of associations among the variables in the model did not differ by gender.

The present study adds to existing literature in many important ways. Thefirst is that the study’s conceptualization of career identity was based on theLuyckx et al. (2006) identity process model. The Luyckx et al. (2006) conceptu-alization permits assessment of career identity in terms of the commitment for-mation and evaluation processes. This helps address the short-comings ofmeasures that do not distinguish between career identity foreclosure andachievement (Skorikov & Vondracek, 2007). Luyckx et al. (2005) found that theachieved status had the highest levels of identification with commitment and ex-ploration in depth; whereas the foreclosed status had significantly lower levels ofidentification with commitment and exploration in depth. The findings of the


FIGURE 3 Final model predicting career identity evaluation with number of jobs (values arestandardized path coefficients; *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

04:

41 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

present study suggested that career decision self-efficacy is positively associatedwith the achieved identity status given that on average, individuals with greaterlevels of career decision self-efficacy also had greater levels of career identityexploration in depth and identification with career identity commitment. Al-though career decision self-efficacy is not the same as career commitment mak-ing, it is moderately associated with career indecision (r = –.33, p < .001; Creed,Patton, & Prideaux, 2006), and in the present study, career decision self-efficacywas associated positively with the deepening of one’s career identity commit-ments, consistent with the conceptual model of Luyckx et al. (2006). These re-sults indicate that career decision self-efficacy is important for the internaliza-tion of one’s career choice while in college.

The second contribution of the present study was the testing of which type ofwork experience (perceived relevant work experience or number of jobs) was abetter predictor of career decision self-efficacy and career identity evaluation. Per-ceived relevant work experience has been assessed very little in U.S. samples (seeOhler et al., 1996). In the present study, perceived relevant work experience wasnot associated with career identity evaluation or career decision self-efficacy. Thismay be because this sample had only moderate levels of perceived relevant workexperience across jobs held. Most work experiences available to college-age youthwithout college degrees are low skill (Hamilton & Hamilton, 2005), which makesthe work experiences less likely to be relevant to their future careers. Alternately, itmay be difficult to assess whether jobs offer relevant work experience for one’scurrent career choice until after one has gained additional experience within one’schosen career. However, number of jobs was significantly and positively associ-ated with career identity evaluation and career decision self-efficacy. Accumu-lating more job experiences was associated with greater career decision self-effi-cacy and career identity evaluation.

Having assumed a number of different jobs could be considered work role ex-perimentation, which is a type of career exploration in breadth. If this is the case,these results suggest that previous career exploration in breadth would be posi-tively associated with having confidence to make career decisions and the deepen-ing of career commitments. Given that most of the work experience the individualsreported in this study was done previous to the time when data were collected, theresults suggest that previous career exploration in breadth may affect current ca-reer decision self-efficacy and career identity evaluation over time. It may be im-portant, therefore, for youth to gain diverse work experiences before leaving highschool and during the period of emerging adulthood in order to promote career de-cision making and career identity development.

The third contribution of the present study was the use of structural equationmodeling to examine contextual influences on career identity development (i.e.,work experiences and parental support for career) using three indicators of careeridentity development (career decision self-efficacy, career identity exploration in


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

04:

41 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

depth, and identification with career identity commitment). The use of structuralequation modeling reduces error that is present in multiple regression analysis bysimultaneously estimating all parameters and using multiple observed indicatorsto represent one construct in which the error is estimated separately from the truescores (Bollen, 1989). To our knowledge, this is the first study to test an associa-tion between career decision self-efficacy and career identity evaluation. AlthoughPorfeli and Skorikov (in press) found associations between changes in career con-fidence and exploration in depth, they did not examine associations between careerconfidence and career identity evaluation (their study did not include identificationwith career identity commitment). When the hypothesized model was tested, sig-nificant associations were found that are consistent with the literature reviewed.Consistent with past literature (Alliman-Brissett et al., 2004; Constantine et al.,2005; Hargrove, Creagh, & Burgess, 2002; Leal-Muniz & Constantine, 2005;Lucas, 1997), parental support for career was important for both career identityevaluation and career decision self-efficacy. Also consistent with what past re-search has suggested, career decision self-efficacy was significantly associatedwith career identity evaluation (Brown & Lavish, 2006; Chung, 2002; Creed &Patton, 2003; Lucas). The significant effect of parental support for career on bothcareer decision self-efficacy and career identity evaluation suggests that parentalsupport for career affects career identity evaluation both directly and indirectlythrough its effect on career decision self-efficacy; however, tests for mediation us-ing longitudinal data should be conducted. Mediation of parental support for ca-reer and career identity evaluation through career decision self-efficacy seemsplausible, given that parental support for career in the present study referred to pre-vious parental support for career while participants were growing up, and identifi-cation with career identity commitment was anticipated identification with careersince participants were not yet fully occupying their vocational careers.

Last, the present study assessed gender differences in the measurement andstructural models. Men and women had significant mean differences on most ofthe variables in the model, and the measurement model showed for collegewomen, that identification with career identity commitment may be more impor-tant in the career identity evaluation process than it is for men. However, men andwomen did not differ in the strength of the associations among the other variablesin the model. Women more than men may need to consciously make career a prior-ity for their identities in order to manage obstacles and competing demands (Fried-man & Weissbrod, 2005; Grandey, Cordeiro, & Crouter, 2005; Matula, Huston, &Grotevant, 1992), however, the process by which men and women form andstrengthen their career identities appears to be similar.

The present study had several limitations. The first limitation was the lack of di-versity within the sample. The sample was primarily Caucasian, middle class, andtwo-thirds female, limiting the generalizability of the results. Another limitationwas that the majority of the sample consisted of individuals majoring in humani-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

04:

41 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

ties. More science and business majors should be included to increase thegeneralizability of the findings. A final limitation is the retrospective and specula-tive nature of the study. To test for mediation that was suggested in the presentstudy, the model should be tested longitudinally, starting before college while par-ticipants are living with their parents and then following participants through col-lege and into their career roles.

Conclusions and Future Directions

The findings from the present study support extant research and add to it in severalimportant ways. The findings are consistent with and build on previous work indi-cating that parental support and career decision self-efficacy are important for ca-reer identity evaluation. This study adds to the literature by examining career iden-tity in a way suggestive of process and provides support for the Luyckx et al.(2006) framework. The present study investigated linkages between current careerdecision self-efficacy and the extent to which individuals were engaged in careeridentity evaluation as indicated by the degree to which they were exploring theircareer identities in depth and the degree to which they anticipated identificationwith career identity commitment. The career identity evaluation outcome is not afinal position but indicative of a location in an ongoing process that includes boththe exploration of, and identification with, one’s chosen career. Such an ongoingprocess would be expected given the age of the participants and their current con-text (i.e., college). Also, when assessing career identity development in futurestudies, other contextual factors, such as perceived occupational opportunitiesavailable, should be examined, given the economic downturn and rising unem-ployment rate in the United States.

The present study also showed that rather than perceived relevance of work ex-periences to one’s anticipated career, number of jobs was predictive of both careerdecision self-efficacy and career identity evaluation. This suggests that gainingwork experiences before choosing a career may serve as a form of career explora-tion in breadth, in which youth assume different roles in different jobs, and thishelps them narrow down what they do and do not want to do for their futurecareers.

Because the majority of studies that have examined the areas of career deci-sion-making related processes, parental influences, and career identity have fo-cused on 4-year college and university samples, it will be important for future re-search to examine career identity development in other populations, such as 2-yearcollege students and individuals who do not attend college after high school. Thepresent findings provide valuable future directions for the study of career identitydevelopment. For example, findings suggest that parental support for career duringchildhood and adolescence is important for both career decision self-efficacy andcareer identity evaluation. This information reinforces the importance of parental


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

04:

41 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

involvement in the career identity development processes of youth. In addition, thepositive association between career decision self-efficacy and career identity eval-uation is meaningful for career counselors in their practice with college studentsbecause it indicates that increasing career decision self-efficacy may be equivalentto increasing decision-making ability. Rather than only focusing on which career astudent should choose, counselors also should promote their clients’ self-efficacyto engage in accurate self-appraisal, gathering occupational information, problemsolving, selecting goals, and planning.

REFERENCES

Adams, G. R., Bennion, L., & Huh, K. (1989). Objective measure of ego identity status: A referencemanual (2nd ed.). Logan: Utah State University.

Alliman-Brisset, A. E., Turner, S. L., & Skovholt, T. M. (2004). Parent support and African Americanadolescents’ career self-efficacy. Professional School Counseling, 7, 124–132.

Arbuckle, J. L. (2007). Amos 16.0 user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS.Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the

twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480.Bentler, P. M. (1990). Fit indexes, Lagrange multipliers, constraint changes and incomplete data in

structural models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 163–172.Berrios-Allison, A. C. (2005). Family influences on college students’ occupational identity. Journal of

Career Assessment, 13, 233–247.Berzonsky, M. D. (2003). Identity style and well-being: Does commitment matter? Identity, 3,

131–142.Betz, N. E., Klein, K., & Taylor, K. M. (1996). Evaluation of a short form of the Career Deci-

sion-Making Self-efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 47–57.Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley-Interscience.Bosma, H. A. (1985). Identity development in adolescents: Coping with commitments. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.Brown, C., & Lavish, L. A. (2006). Career assessment with Native Americans: Role salience and career

decision-making self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 116–129.Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen and J. S.

Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Chung, Y. B. (2002). Career decision-making self-efficacy and career commitment: Gender and ethnic

differences among college students. Journal of Career Development, 28, 277–284.Constantine, M. G., Wallace, B. C., & Kindaichi, M. M. (2005). Examining contextual factors in the

career decision status of African American adolescents. Journal of Career Assessment, 13,307–319.

Côté, J. E. (2006). Young adulthood as an institutionalized moratorium: Risks and benefits to identityformation. In J. J. Arnett & J. L. Tanner (Eds.), Young adulthood in America: Coming of age in the21st century (pp. 85–116). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Creed, P., & Patton, W. (2003). Predicting two components of career maturity in school-based adoles-cents. Journal of Career Development, 29, 277–290.

Creed, P., Patton, W., & Prideaux, L. (2006). Causal relationship between career indecision and careerdecision-making self-efficacy: A longitudinal cross-lagged analysis. Journal of Career Develop-ment, 33, 47–65.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

04:

41 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

Creed, P., Prideaux, L., & Patton, W. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of career decisional statesin adolescence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 397–412.

Crocetti, E., Rubini, M., & Meeus, W. (2008). Capturing the dynamics of identity formation in variousethnic groups: Development and validation of a three-dimensional model. Journal of Adolescence,31, 207–222.

Earl, J. K., & Bright, J. E. H. (2003). Undergraduate level, age, volume and pattern of work as predic-tors of career decision status. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55, 83–88.

Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.Friedman, S. R., & Weissbrod, C. S. (2005). Work and family commitment and decision-making status

among emerging adults. Sex Roles, 53, 317–325.Gloria, A. M., & Hird, J. S. (1999). Influences of ethnic and nonethnic variables on the career deci-

sion-making self-efficacy of college students. Career Development Quarterly, 48, 157–174.Grandey, A. A., Cordeiro, B. L., & Crouter, A. C. (2005). A longitudinal and multi-source test of the

work–family conflict and job satisfaction relationship. Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology, 78, 305–323.

Hamilton, S. F., & Hamilton, M. A. (2006). School, work, and emerging adulthood. In J. J. Arnett & J.L. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging adulthood in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 257–277).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Hargrove, B. K., Creagh, M. G., & Burgess, B. L. (2002). Family interaction patterns as predictors ofvocational identity and career-decision making self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61,185–201.

Holland, J. L., Daiger, D. C., & Power, P. G. (1980). My vocational situation. Palo Alto, CA: ConsultingPsychologists Press.

Kidd, J. M., & Green, F. (2006). The careers of research scientists: Predictors of three dimensions of ca-reer commitment and intention to leave science. Personnel Review, 35, 229–251.

Kunnen, E. S., Sappa, V., van Geert, P. L. C., & Bonica, L. (2008). The shapes of commitment develop-ment in emerging adulthood. Journal of Adult Development, 15, 113–131.

Leal-Muniz, V., & Constantine, M. G. (2005). Predictors of the career commitment process in MexicanAmerican college students. Journal of Career Assessment, 13, 204–215.

Lucas, M. (1997). Identity development, career development, and psychological separation from par-ents: Similarities and differences between men and women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44,123–132.

Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., & Soenens, B. (2005). Identity statuses based on 4 rather than 2 identity dimen-sions: Extending and refining Marcia’s paradigm. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 605–618.

Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., & Soenens, B. (2006). A developmental contextual perspective on identityconstruction in emerging adulthood: Change dynamics in commitment formation and commitmentevaluation. Developmental Psychology, 42, 366–380.

Marcia, J. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 3, 551–558.

Matula, K. E., Huston, T. L., & Grotevant, H. D. (1992). Identity and dating commitment amongwomen and men in college. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 339–356.

Meeus, W., Iedema, J., Helsen, M., & Vollebergh, W. (1999). Patterns of adolescent identity develop-ment: Review of literature and longitudinal analysis. Developmental Review, 19, 419–461.

Meeus, W., Iedema, J., Maassen, G., & Engels, R. (2005). Separation-individuation revisited: On theinterplay of parent–adolescent relations, identity and emotional adjustment in adolescence. Journalof Adolescence, 28, 89–106.

Nurmi, J.-E., & Salmela-Aro, K. (1995). Work Status Questionnaire. Helsinki : University ofHelsinki.

Ohler, D. L., Levinson, E. M., & Barker, W. F. (1996). Career maturity in college students with learningdisabilities. Career Development Quarterly, 44, 278–288.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

04:

41 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

Osipow, S. H., & Gati, I. (1998). Construct and concurrent validity of the career decision-making diffi-culties questionnaire. Journal of Career Assessment, 6, 347–364.

Perrone, K. M., Ægisdóttir, S., Webb, L. K. & Blalock, R. H. (2006). Work–family interface: Commit-ment, conflict, coping, and satisfaction. Journal of Career Development, 32, 286–300.

Porfeli, E., & Skorikov, V. B. (2010). Specific and diversive career exploration during late adolescence.Journal of Career Assessment, 18, 46–58.

Sartor, C. E., & Youniss, J. (2002). The relationship between positive parental involvement and identityachievement during adolescence. Adolescence, 37, 221–234.

Skorkiov, V. B., & Vondracek, F. W. (2007). Vocational identity. In V. Skorikov & W. Patton (Eds.), Ca-reer development in childhood and adolescence (pp. 143–168). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: SensePublishers.

Stephen, J., Fraser, E., & Marcia, J. E. (1992). Moratorium-achievement (Mama) cycles in lifespanidentity development: Value orientations and reasoning system correlates. Journal of Adolescence,15, 283–300.

Taylor, K. M., & Betz, N. E. (1983). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the understanding and treat-ment of career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 63–81.

Turner, S. L., Alliman-Brissett, A., Lapan, R. T., Udipi, S., & Ergun, D. (2003). Career-related par-ent-support scale. Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development, 56, 44–55.

Vondracek, F. W. (1995). Vocational identity across the life-span: A developmental-contextual perspec-tive on achieving self-realization through vocational careers. Man and Work, 6, 93–85.

Waterman, A. S. (1990). Personal expressiveness: Philosophical and psychological foundations. Jour-nal of Mind and Behavior, 11, 47–74.

Zimmerman-Gemback, M. J., & Mortimer, J. T. (2006). Adolescent work, vocational development, andeducation. Review of Educational Research, 76, 537–566.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

04:

41 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

career identity development stringer & kerpelman, 2010

Documents