Cultural Differences in Career Decision-Making …

1 Cultural Differences in Career Decision-Making Stylesand Self-EfficacyWei-Cheng MauDepartment of Administration, Counseling, Education, and School Psychology,Wichita State UniversityThis study examined the Cultural relevance of two important Career constructs: careerdecision- making style and Career Decision-Making self-efficacy. Two distinct culturalgroups of college students, Americans (N5540) andTaiwanese (N51026),participated in this cross- Cultural study. Results suggested that Career decision -makingstyles have differential impacts on Career Decision-Making self-efficacy, depending on thecultural background of the individuals. Results also showed significant Differences incareer Decision-Making style and Career Decision-Making self-efficacy as a function ofnationality and gender.

2 Counseling implications and suggestions for future studies arediscussed. 2000 Academic PressKey Words: Decision-Making ; cognitive style; self-efficacy; Cultural influence; careercounseling; college cognitive revolution of the past several decades has shaped many recentdevelopments in vocational psychology. For example, social-learning theory(Krumboltz, 1994), social-cognitive perspective (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1996),and the Career information processing model (Peterson, Sampson, & Reardon,1991) have emerged as significant theoretical frameworks in explaining educa-tional and vocational behavior. In many ways, Career development advancesthrough cognitive mechanisms (Lent & Hackett, 1994). Vocational researchers ofall theoretical persuasions have shown a tendency to include cognitive variablesin their research (Borgen, 1991).

3 The dramatic increase in the minority popula-tion in the United States and the intense cross- Cultural interaction have alsoprompted researchers to reexamine the applicability of these cognitive views ofI express my gratitude to the College Entrance Exam Center, Taiwan, for assisting me in datacollection and data entry for the Taiwanese sample. I especially thank Helen Ou and Ching-PingCheng for their helpful comments on the Chinese version of the survey questionnaire and DavidBradly and Amie Kopischke, Wichita State University, for their assistance in data collection andpreparation for the American sample. This research project is supported in part by a research grantfrom the Wichita State correspondence and reprint requests to Wei-Cheng Mau, Department of Administration,Counseling, Education, and School Psychology, Wichita State University, 1845 N.

4 Fairmount,Wichita, Kansas 67260-0123. E-mail: of Vocational Behavior57,365 378 (2000) , available online at on3650001-8791/00 $ 2000 by Academic PressAll rights of reproduction in any form development for different Cultural groups. The present study examined thecultural relevance of two important cognitive constructs: Career decision -makingstyle and Career Decision-Making self-efficacy. Osipow (1999) suggested thatthese two cognitive variables are important in resolving Career indecision ahighly studied Career construct and a major concern of Career psychologists formany Decision-Making style as a cognitive construct has been shown torepresent a unique component of vocational behavior and Career development(Harren, 1979; Jepsen & Prediger, 1981; Super, 1980).

5 Decision-Making stylehas been defined as a habitual pattern individuals use in decision making (Driver,1979) or individuals characteristic model of perceiving and responding todecision- making tasks (Harren, 1979). Research on cognitive style has beentraced to the concept of field dependence independence. Among many differenttaxonomic classifications of Decision-Making styles , Harren s (1979) typology,rational ( making decisions deliberately and logically), intuitive ( making deci-sions based on feelings and emotional satisfaction), and dependent (makingdecisions based on the expectations and opinions of others), is the most widelyrecognized (Phillips, Friedlander, Pazienza, & Kost, 1985). The three differentstyles represent distinct sets of attitudes and behaviors used in decision -makingtasks and vary as a function of the degree to which individuals take personalresponsibility for decision making and the extent to which they use logic asdifferentiated from emotional Decision-Making approaches.

6 Driver, Brousseau,and Hunsaker (1990) postulated that individuals have a primary decision -makingstyle and a secondary style. That is, while an individual s approach to a givendecisional task may be characterized by one predominant style, elements of otherstyles can be present (Harren, 1979).Although Harren (1979) suggested that the most effective approach to decisionmaking is the use of a rational style, studies have been inconclusive. For instance,a rational Decision-Making style has been found to be associated with careermaturity (Blustein, 1987; Dilley, 1965), planning and information gathering(Jepsen, 1974), ego identity (Blustein & Phillips, 1990), Career decisiveness(Lunneborg, 1978; Mau, 1995), problem solving efficacy (Heppner, 1978; Phil-lips, Pazienza, & Ferrin, 1984a), and occupational certainty (Mau & Jepsen,1992).

7 In contrast, a nonrational Decision-Making style tends to be inverselyrelated to progress in resolving various Career tasks (Blustein & Phillips, 1990;Mau & Jepsen, 1992; Osipow & Reed, 1985). Although a rational Decision-Making style is generally postulated as an ideal style, some (Chartrand, Rose,Elliott, Marmarosh, & Caldwell, 1993; Mau, 1995; Phillips, Pazienza, & Walsh,1984b; Phillips & Strohmer, 1982; Rubinton, 1980) have indicated that a rationalstyle is either negligibly or not necessarily associated with progress in Career -related tasks. These inconsistent findings indicate that the effectiveness of arational Decision-Making style may be situational, depending on the personal/ Cultural factors as well as on the decisional tasks under study (Mau, 1995).

8 There is an increasing interest in Bandura s (1977, 1986) theory of self-366 WEI-CHENG MAUefficacy expectation as both a mediator and outcome measure of Career -relatedbehaviors. Self-efficacy expectations refer to an individual s beliefs about his/herability to perform a behavior that will produce desired outcomes. Bandura (1977)suggested that individuals who perceive themselves as capable tend to attemptand successfully execute tasks or activities. Self-efficacy serves as a generativemechanism through which individuals integrate and apply their existing cogni-tive, behavioral, and social skills to a task. Self-efficacy affects thought patternsand partly determines individuals actions and their decisions to engage in a task,to put forth effort, and to persevere (Bandura, 1986).

9 The self-efficacy theory hasbeen applied to many specific domains of vocational behavior, such as occupa-tional tasks and Career exploratory behavior. Studies have found a strong relationbetween self-efficacy expectations and Career indecision (for a review see Betz &Luzzo, 1996), Career decision making (Luzzo, 1993, 1995), vocational identity(Munson & Savickas, 1998; Robbins, 1985), patterns of Career choices (Giana-kos, 1999), commitment to leisure role (Munson & Savickas, 1998), careermaturity (Luzzo, 1993, 1995), Career exploratory behavior (Blustein, 1989), andcareer Decision-Making difficulty (Osipow & Gati, 1998).Surprisingly, there were no studies that examined relations between these twoimportant constructs. Only one study (Blustein, 1989) has investigated therelation between Career Decision-Making self-efficacy and the extent of careerexploratory behavior.

10 Findings suggested that the more confidence people havein their Decision-Making capacities, the more likely that they will seek informa-tion about their Career options. Career exploratory behavior resembles careerdecision- making style in that they both involve information-processing. Thissimilarity suggests that there are significant relations between decision -makingself-efficacy and the Decision-Making present study tested the hypothesis that Decision-Making style anddecision- making self-efficacy vary based on Cultural orientation. Previous studieshave indicated that Asian-Americans tend to be less autonomous, more depen-dent, and more conforming and obedient to authority (Abbot, 1970; Sue & Kirk,1972). Studies on cognitive style also have indicated that individuals from aculture whose child-rearing practices encourage obedience in the child andconformance to parental authority are associated with the field-dependent cog-nitive style (Witkin, 1979).