Sign up

Explaining career decision-making self-efficacy: personality, cognitions, and cultural mistrust.
Subject:
Vocational guidance (Psychological aspects)
Decision-making (Psychological aspects)
Self-efficacy (Psychology) (Psychological aspects)
Career development (Psychological aspects)
Authors:
Bullock-Yowell, Emily
Andrews, Lindsay
Buzzetta, Mary E.
Pub Date:
09/01/2011
Publication:
Name: Career Development Quarterly Publisher: National Career Development Association Audience: Trade Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Business; Human resources and labor relations Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2011 National Career Development Association ISSN: 0889-4019
Issue:
Date: Sept, 2011 Source Volume: 59 Source Issue: 5
Product:
Product Code: 8331000 Job Counseling Centers; 9918560 Career Planning NAICS Code: 62431 Vocational Rehabilitation Services SIC Code: 8331 Job training and related services
Geographic:
Geographic Scope: United States Geographic Code: 1USA United States

Accession Number:
268790793
Full Text:
Career decision-making self-efficacy is an individual's belief about her or his capability to perform tasks related to the career decision-making process (Taylor 6k Betz, 1983). There has been an increasing amount of research on career decision-making self-efficacy, demonstrating relationships with several career and personality variables such as certainty, fear of commitment, extraversion, and conscientiousness (Betz, Klein, 6k Taylor, 1996; Betz 6k Sterling, 1993; Hartman 6k Betz, 2007).

Clients' career decision-making self-efficacy can have implications for the success they have in the career development process. It is important not only to identify low career decision-making self-efficacy in clients, but also to understand how to address career decision-making self-efficacy in career counseling. The present study explores three variables that may provide career counselors with some insight regarding how to address lower career decision-making self-efficacy in clients: Big Five personality factors, dysfunctional career thoughts, and cultural mistrust.

Personality Factors

The Big Five personality factors, as defined by Costa and McCrae (1992), have been widely researched with regard to vocational behavior (Betz, 2007). Research pertaining to the five-factor model in the context of career development has shown that conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism are related to several areas of the career development process, including vocational interests, career indecision, and job satisfaction (Tokar, Fisher, & Subich, 1998). Hartman and Betz (2007) sought to investigate the effects of the Big Five personality factors on career self-efficacy. Results demonstrated that neuroticism was a "consistent predictor of inefficacy, whereas conscientiousness and extraversion were the most robust predictors of career-related self-efficacy" (p. 156).

Dysfunctional Career Thinking

In addition to relationships found between personality factors and career-related self-efficacy, personality factors have also been shown to have significant correlations with other career-related variables. Sampson, Peterson, Lenz, Reardon, and Saunders (1996) reported that the Big Five factor of neuroticism has been shown to be positively correlated with dysfunctional career thoughts. Dysfunctional or negative career thinking is a means of viewing oneself in a manner that "inhibits career problem solving and decision making" (Sampson et al., 1996, p. 2). In addition to neuroticism being linked to dysfunctional career thoughts, these thoughts can largely influence an individual's career behavior. Kleiman et al. (2004) hypothesized that dysfunctional thinking during the decision-making process may negatively influence rational decisions. Additionally, dysfunctional thinking may lead to decreased self-esteem and perceived self-efficacy when they occur during the decision-making process. Therefore, dysfunctional career thoughts that are present during the process of choosing an occupation or major may lead to ineffective decisions and decreased decision-making capability.

Cultural Mistrust

The current study not only sought to increase die understanding of the relationships among career decision-making self-efficacy, negative career thoughts, and personality, but also to integrate a new variable--cultural mistrust--into what is known about career development. Because career-related self-efficacy can be viewed within the broader context of social cognitive career theory (SCCT; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994), aspects of social variables are also important to die study of career development. SCCT examines the effect of social variables (e.g., race, gender) on cognitive variables (e.g., self-efficacy, outcome expectations) that influence career development. After conducting a study of African American ninth-grade students that supported the applicability of SCCT to African American students, Gushue and Whitson (2006) stated that furdier research should focus on additional variables involved in SCCT. Specifically, types of support that may aid African American students in overcoming barriers were suggested.

Cultural mistrust can be defined as the extent to which Black people mistrust White people (Terrell & Terrell, 1981). Diemer and Hsieh (2008) explained diat structural racism, oppression, labor market discrimination, and inequitable access to resources related to career development arc thought to account for the gap between career aspirations and expectations among lower socioeconomic status adolescents of color. Terrell and Terrell (1981) stated that because African Americans, as a group, have a long history of race-related mistreatment by White people, African Americans may have developed a generalized suspicion or mistrust of White people.

Previous research related to this idea has been focused mainly on cultural mistrust in the counseling relationship and attitudes toward mental health services (e.g., Nickerson, Helms, & Terrell, 1994; Whalcy, 2001 b). Whaley (2001a) conducted a meta-analysis of 22 empirical studies on cultural mistrust in African Americans and found that African Americans manifest cultural mistrust similarly in mental health treatment contexts and in other situations in much the same way. In odier words, African American individuals who have high cultural mistrust are likely to view the White clinician as representative of the larger White society. Therefore, it is apparent that the cultural beliefs of African Americans do play a significant role in their lifestyles. Furthermore, this meta-analytic review on cultural mistrust in African Americans suggested that other psychosocial variables, such as the effects of negative career thinking and cultural mistrust, should be addressed.

Additionally, research directly linking cultural mistrust to career development issues has been conducted. Related to Whaley's (2001a) suggestion to explore the effects of negative career thinking and cultural mistrust, Barnes and Lightsey (2005) found that perceived racism was related to stress-related phenomena such as intrusive thoughts and images. This finding is consistent with Thompson's (1996) findings that perceived racism is related to intrusive thoughts, images, and feelings. Additionally, Whaley and Smyer (1998) found that cultural mistrust decreased African American adolescents' perceptions of job competence and of global self-worth, thus adding to the perception that schooling does not improve chances of getting a job in an unjust society.

With regard to career decision-making self-efficacy, Rollins (2000) found that African American adolescents who reported a higher degree of racism against their ethnic group also reported greater self-efficacy for a variety of career decision-making tasks. An additional study found that African American students reported significantly higher career decision-making self-efficacy dian did students from other eduiic backgrounds, including Native American, Asian American, and Caucasian American students (Chaney, Hammond, Betz, 8c Multon, 2007). Although several suidies have reported higher career decision-making self-efficacy scores among African American individuals (e.g., Betz 6k Luzzo, 1996; Chaney et al., 2007; Chung, 2002), Gloria and Hird (1999) found significant differences within a sample of diverse undergraduate students, with Caucasian Americans scoring significantiy higher. In summary, previous research has made a strong case for die study of cultural mistrust in relation to these more commonly studied vocational variables, indicating possible relationships with self-efficacy and negative thinking.

The Present Study

Our goal for this study was to increase the understanding of (a) the relationship between personality and career decision-making self-efficacy as introduced by Hartman and Betz (2007) and (b) the role of dysfunctional career thinking. Research has linked dysfunctional career thinking to personality factors (Sampson et al., 1996), but it has not yet been studied in relation to career decision-making self-efficacy. It seems that clients' thoughts about their career decisions would have some connection to their self-efficacy in that domain. The review of these variables in the literature led to the following hypothesis: Personality factors and career thoughts will account for significant variance in career decision-making self-efficacy in a sample of college students. Finally, a review of the literature revealed that there may be additional variables that relate to African American college students' career decision-making self-efficacy, such as mistrust of the majority culture. Greater understanding of the vocational development of all types of clients has been called for repeatedly (Brown, 2007; Miller & Brown, 2005), and the following hypothesis was established in this regard: After controlling for personality factors and career thoughts, cultural mistrust will account for variance in career decision-making self-efficacy in a sample of African American college students.

Method

A power analysis indicated that 218 participants would be needed to analyze all research questions and to detect a moderate effect with an 80% power to detect differences (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). According to Cohen (1988), a power level of .80 is suitable for most research designs.

Participants

A total of 322 undergraduate college students from a university in the southern region of the United States was recruited for this study. Participants were 77 men (23.9%) and 245 women (76.1%), ages 18-51 years (M = 21.02, SD = 4.75). With regard to ethnicity, 174 (54%) participants self-identified as African American and 142 (44.1%) self-identified as Caucasian. The six remaining participants (1.8%) self-identified as Asian, Hispanic, or another ethnicity. The majority of students (81.7%) participated in the study to earn extra credit points that would be applied to their undergraduate psychology course grades. With regard to their college year, 127 (39.4%) participants were freshmen, 81 (25.2%) were sophomores, 56 (17.4%) were juniors, and 55 (17.1%) were seniors. Of the two remaining participants, one was a graduate student and the other did not specify the college year.

Procedure

Over the course of one academic year, the research participants voluntarily enrolled in the present study through the psychology department's online data collection system, Experimetrix. Recruitment of participants was aided by the option to earn extra credit by participating. Data were collected through a series of in-person sessions. The purpose, risks, and benefits of the study were explained to the participants, who signed an informed consent document approved by the university's Internal Review Board. To protect participants' confidentiality and maintain organization of all of the completed forms, unique, numeric participant codes were placed on the questionnaires. Group administration of all study questionnaires was carried out by research assistants. Administration time for each participant was approximately 45 minutes.

Instruments

The following instruments were used to measure the variables in the present study. Participant means, standard deviations, range of scores, and possible range of scores are presented in Table 1.

Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale-Short Form (CDSE-SF; Betz et al., 1996). The 25-item CDSE-SF, which is based on Bandura's (1977) social cognitive theory, measures an individual's belief that he or she can successfully complete tasks necessary for making career decisions. The instrument contains five subscales (Self-Appraisal, Occupational Information, Coal Selection, Planning, and Problem-Solving), which are grounded in Crites's (1976) theory of career maturity. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, where 1 = no confidence at all, 2 = very little confidence, 3 = moderate confidence, 4 = much confidence, and 5 = complete confidence. The original version of the CDSE-SF included a 10-point Likert-type scale that ranged from 0 = no confidence at all to 9 = complete confidence. Both response sets produced similar coefficient alphas and, therefore, the 5-point scale remained. Examples of CDSE-SF items are, "Decide what you value most in an occupation," "Choose a major or career that will fit your interests," and "Find information about graduate or professional schools." According to Betz et al. (1996), the CDSE-SF has yielded coefficient alphas ranging from .73 to .83 for the subscales and .94 for the total scale. A 6-week, test-retest reliability of .83 was reported by Luzzo (1993). For the current sample, the participants' Cronbach alpha coefficient was .94. Factor analysis did not support the five-factor structure indicated by Crites's theory-derived subscales, but rather a general measure of career decision-making self-efficacy (Betz & Luzzo, 1996; Taylor 6k Popma, 1990). Evidence of convergent validity was provided through significant correlations with related scales such as the Career Decision Scale (Osipow, Carney, Winer, Yanico, & Koschier, 1976), Career Beliefs Inventory (Krumboltz, 1991), and My Vocational Situation (Holland, Daiger, & Power, 1980). The CDSE total score has been shown through discriminant analysis to differentiate between individuals varying on levels of vocational identity (Robbins, 1985).

Career Thoughts Inventory (CTI; Sampson et al., 1998). The 48-item self-report CTI measures dysfunctional or negative thoughts that impede career decision making using a 4-point Likert-type scale, where 0 = strongly disagree and 3 = strongly agree. It yields a total score and three subscale scores: Decision Making Confusion, Commitment Anxiety, and External Conflict. The total score was used for the purposes of this study. CTI item examples include "I'm so confused, I'll never be able to choose a field of study or occupation," "I need to choose a field of study or occupation that will please the important people in my life," and "I'm afraid if I try out my chosen occupation, I won't be successful." Higher scores on the CTI indicate more dysfunctional career thinking. Sampson et al. (1998) reported internal consistency for the CTI total score in a sample of college students as .96. For the current sample, the participants' Cronbach alpha coefficient was .95. Test-retest reliability was measured in college and high school students across 4 weeks and ranged from .74 to .82 (Sampson et al., 1998).

Content validity of this measure is based on the congruence of CTI items with the cognitive information processing (CIP) approach to career decision making (Sampson, Reardon, Peterson, & Lenz, 2004). Convergent validity was established through negative correlations with positive career and vocational identity variables, as well as positive relations with measures of indecision. The CTI was significantly negatively correlated with the Certainty scale of the Career Decision Scale (CDS; Osipow, Carney, Winer, Yanico, & Koschier, 1987) and positively correlated with the CDS Indecision scale. Criterion validity was demonstrated in a sample of college students; CTI scores differed significantly between students seeking career services and those who were not seeking such services.

International Personality Item Pool (IPIP-NEO; Goldberg et al., 2006). The Big Five personality' factors were assessed with the 50-item IPIP-NEO. Items, directions for administration, and directions for scoring can be obtained from the principal developer of the instrument. Each factor is assessed by 10 items that are rated from 1 (very inaccurate) to 5 (very accurate) regarding how accurately they describe the respondent. The first factor, Openness, includes such traits as creativity and sophistication. Items include "have a rich vocabulary," "have a vivid imagination," and "am not interested in abstract ideas." Conscientiousness consists of items designed to assess one's traits of conscientiousness and dependability (e.g., "am always prepared," "like order," "leave my belongings around"). Extraversion was designed to assess respondents' sociable and active traits. Sample items are "am the life of the party," "start conversations," and "keep in the background." Agreeableness consists of items that address the respondent's interest in and warmth toward others. Sample items are "am interested in people," "have a soft heart," and "feel little concern for others." Finally, Emotional Stability, the opposite of the more commonly used term neuroticism, is assessed by items that ask about the respondent's sensitivity to stress and fluctuations in emotional experience (e.g., "get stressed out easily," "get upset easily," "seldom feel blue"). The IPIP scales are correlated with the equivalent scales of the NEO inventory, with correlations ranging from .85 to .92 after correction for attenuation (International Personality Item Pool, 2001). The internal consistency estimates for the current sample are as follows: Openness ([alpha] = .78), Conscientiousness ([alpha] = .78), Extraversion ([alpha] = .86), Agreeableness ([alpha] = .77), and Emotional Stability ([alpha] = .87).

Multiple studies have examined discriminant validity of Big Five factor models (e.g., Baker, Victor, Chambers, & Halverson, 2004; Biesanz, & West, 2004; Lim & Ployhart, 2006). Discriminant validity has been confirmed by Lim and Ploy art (2006), who used multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) analysis to compare factor structures of the IPIP-NEO to another Big Five inventory, that is, NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Additional studies have found some evidence of discriminant validity through the use of multiple raters and time points (Baker et al., 2004; Biesanz & West, 2004).

Cultural Mistrust Inventory (CMI; Terrell & Terrell, 1981). Cultural mistrust was assessed by the CMI, which contains 48 items that assess the degree to which African Americans mistrust the dominant White culture. The CMI includes four subscales: Education and Training, Interpersonal Relations, Business and Work, and Politics and Law. Participants rate the items on the inventory on a 10-point Likert-type scale that measures the degree to which they agree with common beliefs and attitudes of perceived racism. Ratings range from 1 {strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Item examples include "White teachers teach subjects so that they favor Whites," "Black citizens can rely on White lawyers to defend them to the best of their ability," and "White politicians will promise Blacks a lot but deliver little." Terrell and Terrell (1981) reported that the internal consistency coefficient alpha for the CMI was .85 for clinical samples and .89 for nonclinical samples. A 2-week test-retest reliability estimate of .86 was reported. For the current sample, the participants'1 Cronbach alpha coefficient was .91. The CMI has shown good convergent validity with a measure of nonclinical paranoia and discriminant validity with measures of self-esteem and social desirability (Whaley, 2002).

Results

After full sample descriptive analyses, a multiple regression was conducted to assess the variance in career decision-making self-efficacy that can be accounted for by the Big Five personality factors and career thoughts. Subsequently, a hierarchical regression was conducted to determine if cultural mistrust would account for unique variance in career decisionmaking self-efficacy for the African American participants.

In the present study, relationships among career decision-making self-efficacy, career thoughts, and Big Five personality factors were explored in the full sample. The relationship between career decision-making self-efficacy and cultural mistrust, while controlling for career thoughts and Big Five personality factors, was explored in a subsample of African American participants. Career decision-making self-efficacy was found to be positively correlated with all Big Five personality factors and negatively correlated with career thoughts and cultural mistrust. Career thoughts and cultural mistrust were positively related in the African American sample. Career thoughts and all Big Five personality factors were found to be negatively related in the full sample. A complete correlation matrix, means, standard deviations, and ranges for all variables are presented in Table 1.

In a multiple regression analysis, career thoughts, openness, and conscientiousness accounted for a practically significant amount of the Variance (effect size = .45) in career decision-making self-efficacy in the full sample of 322 participants. No other Big Five factors accounted for variance in this analysis. A summary of these findings is found in Table 2.

A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted using a subsample of 174 African American participants. This analysis was to determine if cultural mistrust explained variance in career decision-making sclf-efficacy, while controlling for Rig Five personality factors and career thoughts. These variables accounted for a practically significant amount of the variance (effect size = .44) in career decision-making self-efficacy. Yet, cultural mistrust did not account for any unique variance in career self-efficacy after controlling for career thoughts and the personality factors. A summary of these findings is found in Table 3.

Discussion

Initially, the present study sought to clarify the relationship among all relevant variables through correlations. Results of these correlations showed that all Big Five factors were correlated with career decision-making self-efficacy. This result is unlike those of Hartman and Betz (2007), who only found it to be correlated with Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Neuroticism. Career decision-making self-efficacy was found to be negatively correlated with career thoughts, supporting Kleiman et al.'s (2004) hypothesis that dysfunctional thinking can affect self-efficacy when it occurs during the decision-making process. Dysfunctional career thoughts were found to be negatively correlated with all Big Five personality factors. This finding adds to Sampson et al.'s (1996) findings that dysfunctional career thoughts are linked to neuroticism.

In the sample of African American college students, career decision-making self-efficacy was found to be negatively correlated with cultural mistrust. This finding is in contrast to Rollins's (2000) study, which reported that African American adolescents who reported a higher degree of racism against their ethnic group also reported greater self-efficacy for a variety of career decision-making tasks. Career thoughts and cultural mistrust were positively related, supporting Barnes and Lightsey's (2005) and Thompson's (1996) findings that perceived racism is related to intrusive thoughts.

When a multiple regression was used, career thoughts, openness, conscientiousness, and extraversion accounted for practically significant (45%) and unique variance in career decision-making self-efficacy. This finding is more in line with, yet not exactly like Hartman and Betz's (2007) personality-related finding that neuroticism was a "consistent predictor of inefficacy, whereas conscientiousness and extraversion were the most robust predictors of career-related self-efficacy" (p. 156).

When using a hierarchical regression analysis with the African American sample, cultural mistrust did not account for significant unique variance in career decision-making self-efficacy when controlling for career thoughts and personality. This result indicates that although cultural mistrust was related to career decision-making self-efficacy for these African American participants, career thoughts and personality better explained their career decision-making self-efficacy.

Implications

The findings of this study give career counselors insight regarding working with clients who have lower career decision-making self-efficacy. Being aware of clients' personality factors, especially openness, conscientiousness, and extraversion, may help a counselor prepare for or ask better questions regarding clients' career decision-making self-efficacy. For example, a counselor may assess clients' personality and find that their openness is low. It may he helpful, then, to encourage them to be more open to a variety of career options. Interventions could include exposure to options not previously considered through written occupational information or information interviews.

While continuing to conceptualize a client's issues through an SCCT perspective (Lent, Brown, 8c Hackett, 1994), career counselors can use many of their cognitive-based counseling skills to intervene on clients' negative career thinking, which we found to have strong implications for a client's career decision-making self-efficacy. As stated as part of the cognitive information processing approach (CIP; Sampson et al., 2004), career counselors can aid clients in identifying, challenging, altering, and acting on their negative career thoughts. Because of the amount of variance that career thoughts explain in career decision-making self-efficacy, intervention on this issue could increase clients' self-efficacy as well as enhance a variety of career decision-making variables (Kleiman et al., 2004; Sampson et al., 1996). The CIP approach integrates the measurement of and intervention on dysfunctional or negative career thinking into its core constructs. Negative career thinking is theorized to have implications for all aspects of the career development process, including knowledge of values, interests, skills, employment preferences, occupational knowledge, and decision-making skills. This approach advocates that counselors assess the readiness of their client to engage in the career development process through a formal assessment of negative career thoughts. Specifically, negative career thoughts can be assessed using the CTI and interventions can be guided through its associated workbook.

Because cultural mistrust did not account for variance in career decision-making self-efficacy beyond that which was accounted for by personality and career thoughts, it is assumed that the previously mentioned interventions would be similarly helpful for African American and Caucasian American clients. Yet, cultural mistrust did have some relationship with career decision-making self-efficacy and may be worth discussing with African American clients. A counselor could approach this issue with clients by asking a question such as, "Do you believe that you are limited by your cultural/ethnic background?" (Brown, 2007, p. 97) as suggested in Brown's values-based multicultural approach to career counseling and advocacy.

Limitations

Although the present study represents a significant contribution to the literature, it has limitations. Notably, the sample was composed of college students who were mostly women. Further research is needed to determine whether these findings would replicate themselves in different populations. Because the data were based completely on self-report measures, relationships and large variance accounted for may be artificially influenced by similar response styles. Additionally, the CTI and CDSE contain items that represent similar ideas (e.g., CTI: "No field of study or occupation interest me"; CDSE: "Choose a major or career that will fit your interests"). These similarities may lead to inflated relationships. Although studies have found some evidence for discriminant validity across multiple sources of reporting on the constructs of interest, the literature would be strengthened by further research on these concerns. Additionally, because this study relied on correlational statistical methods, causation cannot be assumed among the variables studied. Yet, we do propose that negative career thoughts and certain aspects of clients' personalities have implications for those clients' career decision-making self-efficacy. This study, along with the previous literature, indicates that cultural mistrust has implications for career development and is worthy of further study.

References

Baker, S. R., Victor, J. B., Chambers, A. L., & Halverson, C. F., Jr. (2004). Adolescent personality: A five-factor model construct validation. Assessment, 11, 303-315.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Barnes, P. W., & Lightsey, O. R., Jr. (2005). Perceived racist discrimination, coping, stress, and life satisfaction. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 33, 48-61.

Betz, N. E. (2007). Career self-efficacy: Exemplary recent research and emerging directions. Journal of Career Assessment, 15, 403-422.

Betz, N. E., Klein, K. L., & Taylor, K. M. (1996). Evaluation of a short form of the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal ofCareer Assessment, 4, 47-57.

Betz, N. E., & Luzzo, D. A. (1996). Career assessment and the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 413-428.

Betz, N. E., & Sterling, D. (1993). Criterion-related and construct validity of fear of commitment. Journal of Career Assessment, 1, 21-34.

Biesanz, J. C., & West, S. G. (2004). Towards understanding assessments of the Big Five: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of convergent and discriminant validity across measurement occasion and type of observer. Journal of Personality, 72, 845-876.

Brown, D. (2007). Career information, career counseling, and career development (9th ed.). New York, NY: Pcarson/Allyn & Bacon.

Chaney, D., Hammond, M. S., Betz, N. E., Multon, K. D. (2007). The reliability and factor structure of the Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale SF with African Americans. Journal of Career Assessment, 15, 194-205.

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.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Crites, J. O. (1976). A comprehensive model of career development in early adulthood. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9, 105-118.

Diemer, M. A., & Hsieh, C. (2008). Sociopolitical development and vocational expectations among lower socioeconomic status adolescents of color. The Career Development Quarterly. 56, 257-267.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.

Gloria, A. M., & Hird, J. S. (1999). Influences of ethnic and nonethnic variables on the career decision-making self-efficacy of college students. The Career Development Quarterly, 48, 157-174.

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality. 40, 84-96.

Gushue, G. V., & Whitson, M. L. (2006). The relationship among support, ethnic identity, career decision self-efficacy, and outcome expectations in African-American high school students: Applying social cognitive career theory. Journal of Career Development, 33, 112-124.

Hartman, R. O., & Betz, N. E. (2007). The Five-Factor Model and career self-efficacy: General and domain-specific relationships. Journal of Career Assessment, 15, 145-161.

Holland, J. L., Daiger, D. C., & Power, P. G. (1980). My Vocational Situation. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

International Personality Item Pool. (2001). A scientific collaborators for the development of advanced measures of personality traits and other individual differences. Retrieved from http://ipip.ori.org/

Kleiman, T., Gad, I., Peterson, G., Sampson, J., Reardon, R., & Lenz, J. (2004). Dysfunctional thinking and difficulties in career decision making. Journal of Career Assessment, 12, 312-331.

Krumboltz, J. D.(1991). Career Beliefs Iuventoty. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Lent. R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance [Monograph]. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79-122.

Lim, B. C., & Ployhart, R. E. (2006). Assessing the convergent and discriminant validity of Goldberg's International Personality Item Pool: A muliirrait-multimethod examination. Organisational Research Methods, 9, 29-54.

Luzzo, D. A. (1993). Value of career decision-making self-efficacy in predicting career decision-making attitudes and skills. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 194-199.

Miller, M. J., & Brown, S. D. (2005). Counseling for career choice: Implications for improving interventions and working with diverse populations. In S. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 441-465). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Nickerson, K. J., Helms, J. E., & Terrell F. (1994). Cultural mistrust, opinions about mental illness, and Black students' attitudes toward seeking psychological help from White counselors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 378-385.

Osipow, S. H., Carney, C. G, Winer, J., Yanico, B., & Koschier, M. (1976). The Career Decision Scale. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Osipow, S. H., Carney, C. G, Winer, J., Yanico, B., & Koschier, M. (1987). The Career Decision Scale (Rev. ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Robbins, S. B. (1985). Validity estimates for the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 18, 64-71.

Rollins, V. B. (2000). Perceived racism and career self-efficacy in African-American adolescents (Doctoral dissertation, University of Denver). Retrieved from Dissertations and Theses: Full Text database.

Sampson, J. P., Jr., Peterson, G. W., Lenz, J. G., Reardon, R. C., & Saunders, D. E. (1996). Career Thoughts Inventory: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Sampson, J. P., Jr., Peterson, G. W., Lenz, J. G., Reardon. R. C., & Saunders, D. E. (1998). The design and use of a measure of dysfunctional career thoughts among adults, college students, and high school students: The Career Thoughts Inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 6, 115-134.

Sampson, J. P., Jr., Reardon, R .C, Peterson, G. W., & Lenz, J. G. (2004). Career counseling & services: A cognitive information processing approach. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

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

Taylor, K., & Popma, J. (1990). An examination of the relationships among career decisionmaking self-efficacy, career salience, locus of control, and vocational indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 17-31.

Terrell, F., & Terrell, S. L. (1981). An inventory to measure cultural mistrust among Blacks. Western Journal of Black Studies, 3, 180-185.

Thompson, V. L. S. (1996). Perceived experiences of racism as stressful life events. Community Mental Health Journal, 32, 223-233.

Tokar, D. M.,Fisher,A. R.,& Subich, L. M. (1998). Personality and vocational behavior: A selected review of the literature, 1993-1997. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 115-153.

Whaley, A. L. (2001a). Cultural mistrust and mental health services for African-Americans: A review and meta-analysis. The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 513-531.

Whaley, A. L. (2001b). Cultural mistrust of White mental health clinicians among African Americans with severe mental illness. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71, 252-256.

Whaley, A. L. (2002). Psychometric analysis of the Cultural Mistrust Inventory with a Black psychiatric inpatient sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 383-396.

Whaley, A. L., & Symer, D. A. (1998). Self evaluation processes of African-American youth in a high school completion program. Journal of Psychology, 132, 317-327.

Emily Bullock-Yowell and Lindsay Andrews, Department of Psychology, University of Southern Mississippi; Mary E. Buzzetta, University Career Center, University of Texas at San Antonio. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Emily Bullock-Yowell, Department of Psychology, University of Southern Mississippi, 118 College Drive, #5025, Hattiesburg, MS 39406-0001 (e-mail: Emily.Yowell@usm.edu).
The authors explore the hypothesis that career decision-making
  self-efficacy could be affected by negative career thoughts.
  Big Five personality factors, and cultural mistrust in
  a sample of African American and Caucasian college students.
  Findings demonstrated that negative career thinking,
  openness, and conscientiousness explained a significant
  amount of variance in career decision-making self-efficacy
  in a general sample of college students, but no unique
  variance was explained by cultural mistrust in a sample
  of African American college students.


TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Variable          1      2      3      4      5      6      7       8

1. CDSE           -

2. CT          -.60      -
               (**)

3. OP           .42   -.31      -
               (**)   (**)

4. CON          .34   -.30    .21      -
               (**)   (**)   (**)

5. EXT          .20   -.11    .27    .02      -
               (**)    (*)   (**)

6. AGR          .25   -.26    .24    .23    .26      -
               (**)   (**)   (**)   (**)   (**)

7. ES (a)       .30   -.35    .17    .22    .14    .19      -
               (**)   (**)   (**)   (**)   (**)   (**)

8. CM (b)      -.18    .28   -.20   -.02   -.06   -.29   -.24       -
                (*)   (**)   (**)                 (**)   (**)

M            102.53  36.34  37.10  36.41  33.89  40.82  31.06  154.00

SD            14.32  23.07   5.72   6.07   7.68   5.42   8.07   33.07

Possible     25-125  0-144  10-50  10-50  10-50  10-50  10-50  48-336
range

Range this   50-125  0-113  19-50  17-49  13-50  22-50  10-50  75-280
sample

Participant     .94    .95    .78    .78    .86    .77    .87     .91
[alpha]

Note. N = 322; African American participants, n = 174. CDSE = Career
Decision Self-Efficacy; CT = Career Thoughts; OP = Openness; CON =
Conscientiousness; EXT = Extraversion; AGR = Agreeableness; ES =
Emotional Stability; CM = Cultural Mistrust. (a) aOpposite of
Neuroticism. (b) African American sample.
(*) p < .05. (**) p < .001.


TABLE 2

Regression Analysis Predicting Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy

Predictor                  B  SE B    [beta]

Career Thoughts          -.01   .00  -.46 (*)
Openness                  .02   .01   .22 (*)
Conscientiousness         .02   .00   .15 (*)
Extraversion              .01   .00   .10 (*)
Agreeableness             .00   .00       .00
Emotional Stability (a)   .00   .00       .06

Note. [R.sup.2] = .458; N = 322. (a) Opposite of Neuroticism.
(*) p < .05.


TABLE 3

Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Career Decision-Making
Self-Efficacy in the African American Sample

Step and Predictor      B   SE  [beta]  [R.sup.2]  [DELTA][R.sup.2]
                             B

Step 1                                        .44
Career Thoughts      -.01  .00    -.42
                                   (*)
Openness              .02  .01     .22
                                   (*)
Conscientiousness     .01  .01     .11
Extraversion          .01  .01     .11
Agreeableness         .00  .01    -.00
Emotional Stability   .00  .00     .09
(a)
Step 2                                        .44               .00
Cultural Mistrust    -.00  .00    -.00

Note. N = 174. (a) Opposite of Neuroticism. (*) p <.05.
Gale Copyright:
Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.