Differences Between Supplied and Elicited Considerations in Career Evaluation

Abstract

This paper studies the difference between deciders' uses of supplied and elicited considerations within the context of career evaluation. Twenty first-year students rated 10 elicited career alternatives on 5 supplied constructs (e.g., demanding/relaxed) and 5 personal constructs. Next, students indicated their preferences between alternatives, when presented with 25 pairs of careers. Reaction times were recorded. The results indicated that personal constructs were more interrelated and more evaluatively compatible than supplied constructs. These structural attributes of constructs also correlated significantly with indecisiveness or reaction time. It was concluded that deciders were more coherent in using personal rather than supplied constructs.

Structure and style in career decision making

“…More highly integrated vocational systems were associated with significantly higher levels of rational decision making. As with previous work (Nevill, et al, 1986) it appears that more deliberate, effective decision skills may rely on a system of vocational constructions that is coherent and well organized (Cochran, 1977). Contrary to predictions, however, levels of differentiation again failed to exert a significant impact on levels of rational decision making.…”

“…Lacking sufficient coherence in their own career decision frameworks, it seems likely that these individuals appeal instead to others for making such decisions. Particularly likely candidates would be parents or friends whose decisions might be easily co-opted by an individual who cannot depend on his or her own framework since it lacks the coherence and organization essential to effective decision making (Cochran, 1977;Nevill, et al, 1986).…”

“…Differentiation is understood as the relative number of different dimensions of judgment used by the person, with levels of differentiation enabling the person to construe events in a more multidimensional way (Tripodi & Bieri, 1964). Integration, by contrast, refers to the amount of interrelationship among the dimensions in a system; higher levels of integration permit more rapid (Cochran, 1977) and effective (Neimeyer, Nevill, Probert & Fukuyama, 1985) career decision making since integration reflects the overall degree of organization within the vocational construct system. In broad brushstrokes, the structural model of vocational development argues that vocational maturation should be marked by increasingly diverse perceptions of the world of work, perceptions that are nonetheless organized by an overall integration that enables the system's coherence and directs its evolution.…”

“…Operating at the lowest level of structural development, poorly integrated and differentiated systems lack the diversity (differentiation) and clarity (integration) that more highly developed systems would permit. Marked by a particularly loose organization among relatively few vocational constructs, these systems would have to depend on coopting the available decisions made for them by others (Neimeyer & Metzler, 1987;Neimeyer et al, 1985;Nevill, et al, 1986) or simply "shooting from the hip" since the system lacks sufficient organization to permit rapid and definitive decision making (Cochran, 1977;Nevill et al, 1986). Kelly (1955) defined loose constructs as those that lead to varying predictions, and previous work has already noted that lower levels of vocational integration permit greater career explora-tion (Nevill, et al, 1986), a strategy that is curtailed as the system develops a more tightly organized system of constructs that lead to more definitive occupational judgments.…”

Personal Constructs in Career Counseling and Development

“…As the illustration in Figure 2 depicts, a great deal of information can be obtained in only a few short moments of a laddering exercise such as this. It can reveal important constructs within the client's career decision frame (see Cochran, 1977) and help to articulate their hierarchical alignment within the system as well. Beginning with a personal discrimination between creative and technical occupations, for example, Jean was quickly able to ladder upwards towards their superordinate implications (enjoying life).…”