当前位置：文档库 › 2016-ARP-Vocational Psychology_ Agency, Equity, and Well-Being

2016-ARP-Vocational Psychology_ Agency, Equity, and Well-Being

Vocational Psychology:Agency,Equity,and Well-Being

Steven D.Brown 1and Robert W.Lent 2

School of Education,Loyola University Chicago,Chicago,Illinois 60611;email:sbrown@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/288487559.html,

College of Education,University of Maryland,College Park,Maryland 20742;email:boblent@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/288487559.html,

Annu.Rev.Psychol.2016.67:541–65

First published online as a Review in Advance on October 2,2015

The Annual Review of Psychology is online at https://www.wendangku.net/doc/288487559.html,

This article’s doi:

10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033237Copyright c

Keywords

career adaptability,self-ef?cacy,work volition,social class,STEM participation,work well-being

Abstract

The present review organizes the vocational psychology literature published between 2007and 2014into three overarching themes:Promoting (a )agency in career development,(b )equity in the work force,and (c )well-being in work and educational settings.Research on career adaptability,self-ef?cacy beliefs,and work volition is reviewed in the agency section,with the goal of delineating variables that promote or constrain the exercise of personal agency in academic and occupational pursuits.The equity theme covers re-search on social class and race/ethnicity in career development;entry and retention of women and people of color in science,technology,engineer-ing,and math (STEM)?elds;and the career service needs of survivors of domestic violence and of criminal offenders.The goal was to explore how greater equity in the work force could be promoted for these groups.In the well-being section,we review research on hedonic (work,educational,and life satisfaction)and eudaimonic (career calling,meaning,engagement,and commitment)variables,with the goal of understanding how well-being might be promoted at school and at work.Future research needs related to each theme are also discussed.

Click here to view this article's online features:

? Download ?gures as PPT slides ? Navigate linked references ? Download citations ? Explore related articles ? Search keywords

ANNUAL REVIEWS

Further

A n n u . R e v . P s y c h o l . 2016.67:541-565. D o w n l o a d e d f r o m w w w .a n n u a l r e v i e w s .o r g A c c e s s p r o v i d e d b y S o u t h w e s t U n i v e r s i t y o n 01/20/16. F o r p e r s o n a l u s e o n l y .

Contents

INTRODUCTION...............................................................542AGENCY:MECHANISMS OF SELF-DIRECTION

IN CAREER DEVELOPMENT ...............................................543Adaptability....................................................................543Self-Ef?cacy....................................................................545Work Volition .................................................................547EQUITY:SOCIAL JUSTICE IN CAREER DEVELOPMENT....................548Educational and Occupational Attainment and Success of Underserved Youth .....548STEM Entry and Retention of Women and People of Color......................551Promoting Work Participation of Survivors of Domestic Violence

and Criminal Offenders......................................................554WELL-BEING:POSITIVE ADAPTATION TO SCHOOL

AND WORK SETTINGS .....................................................554Hedonic Well-Being:Job,Academic,and Life Satisfaction........................554Eudaimonic Well-Being:Calling,Meaning,Commitment,and Engagement.......555SUMMARY AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS......................................

557

INTRODUCTION

Many schemes have been used to organize prior reviews of the vocational psychology literature.To fashion a framework for this review,we began by searching the tables of contents of six journals that are exclusively or largely devoted to vocational psychology and career development (Career Development Quarterly,Journal of Career Assessment,Journal of Career Development,Journal of Vocational Behavior,Journal of Counseling Psychology,and The Counseling Psychologist ).The time frame for this search (2007–2014)was set to dovetail with the last Annual Review of Psychology examination of the vocational psychology literature (Fouad 2007).

A frequency count of theories,constructs,and populations revealed that two theoretical per-spectives,person-environment (P-E)?t and social cognitive career theory (SCCT),had received the bulk of research attention during the review period.The P-E ?t perspective hypothesizes that the degree of match (or ?t)between person characteristics (e.g.,interests,work values,per-sonality,abilities)and characteristics of the work environment is an important predictor of work satisfaction,performance,and tenure.SCCT focuses on the roles of person characteristics (e.g.,self-ef?cacy beliefs,outcome expectations,goals)and contextual factors (e.g.,supports,barriers)in educational and work interest development,choice making,satisfaction,and performance.Career construction theory,which emphasizes the ways in which people help to author their own work lives in relation to environmental (e.g.,family,role model)in?uences,had also received favorable attention as a practice framework,though less vigorous empirical activity,with the notable excep-tion of recent research on the career adaptability construct.A few other conceptual frameworks,such as the psychology of working perspective,which is concerned with the work participation of underserved and understudied workers,also stimulated valuable discussion and some inquiry during the review period.

In terms of constructs,we noted that the following had received concentrated research attention since 2007:self-ef?cacy beliefs,career adaptability,career exploration and decision making,career and educational barriers and supports,work and well-being,work volition,career

aspirations,work transitions,work-family con?ict and enhancement,vocational calling,interests,and personality.A variety of population segments (and individual difference variables)had been studied,with a focus on such dimensions as race,ethnicity,gender,sexual orientation,social class,and disability;children and adolescents;prisoners and ex-offenders;and domestic violence survivors.International samples were also included more frequently than in prior years,marking an important new era in vocational psychology research.

In conducting our analysis of journal content,we realized that much of the recent literature can be organized around three overarching themes that re?ect the social justice zeitgeist of con-temporary vocational psychology:promoting agency in career development,equity at work,and well-being in occupational and educational settings.It can be argued that these three themes form a cogent narrative for the ?eld at present,along with a meaningful framework for integrating much research on its theories,constructs,and populations of interest.Although a good deal of valuable research on more traditional vocational psychology topics (e.g.,interest measurement,career decision making)was generated during the review period,our goal is to focus more se-lectively on work that is emerging from newer as well as ongoing conceptual streams and that re?ects the ?eld’s concerns with a variety of contemporary social issues.We also seek a balance between topics that have received a good deal of research during the review period and topics that have received more limited inquiry but are relevant to vocational psychology’s understanding of agency,equity,or well-being.Given space considerations,in many instances,we cite only a few studies as examples of larger bodies of research.

The ?rst theme (agency)includes research on career adaptability,self-ef?cacy beliefs,and work volition.The second theme (equity)encompasses (a )the career development of underserved youth;(b )the science,technology,engineering,and math (STEM)entry and retention of women and people of color;and (c )the career experiences and service needs of domestic abuse survivors and criminal justice populations.Although these groups have received varying levels of attention in the literature,their inclusion in this review re?ects the ?eld’s increasing emphasis on persons who often face signi?cant impediments to their work participation or career advancement.The third theme (well-being)involves research on both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being in educational settings and in the workplace.Hedonic well-being includes such affective outcomes as job and academic satisfaction.Coverage of eudaimonic well-being focuses on topics,such as meaning and calling,that capture ways in which people achieve a sense of growth and ful?llment at school and work.Our review concludes with an outline of several directions for future inquiry on agency,equity,and well-being in the context of academic and work settings.

AGENCY:MECHANISMS OF SELF-DIRECTION IN CAREER DEVELOPMENT

In this section,we highlight research involving constructs that,theoretically,enable people to exercise agency in their career development and to adapt well to their vocational options.At the same time,these research streams often point to contextual (e.g.,social and economic)variables that may either maximize or hinder the exercise of agency in career pursuits.

Adaptability

Career adaptability refers to “the readiness to cope with the predictable tasks of preparing for and participating in the work role and with the unpredictable adjustments prompted by changes in work and working conditions”(Savickas 1997,p.254).Adaptability is a central construct of career construction theory.Though it has been operationalized in a variety of ways (e.g.,Rottinghaus et al.

2012),most recent research on the construct has used the Career Adapt-Abilities Scale (CAAS).Savickas &Porfeli (2012)described the development and initial psychometric examination of the scale,which was studied within a remarkable multicountry collaborative project.

Factor structure and correlates of adaptability.The CAAS consists of four 6-item scales,each corresponding to the conceptual dimensions of career adaptability:career (a )concern (an orientation toward planning for the future),(b )control (tendencies toward conscientiousness and organization),(c )curiosity (willingness to explore how one ?ts into the work world),and (d )con?dence (self-ef?cacy regarding one’s problem-solving capabilities).Con?rmatory factor analysis of the CAAS has supported a hierarchical latent structure,with each of the primary four dimensions loading on a higher-order adaptability factor (Savickas &Porfeli 2012).CAAS total and subscale scores have been found to relate to a wide array of career and noncareer variables,such as vocational identity (Porfeli &Savickas 2012),job and life satisfaction (Maggiori et al.2013),and Big Five personality factors (van Vianen et al.2012).Hamtiaux et al.(2013)found evidence of convergent validity between the CAAS and an alternative measure of adaptability.Model tests and developmental considerations.Several studies have tested theoretical models of how career adaptability functions in relation to other variables.For example,Guan et al.(2013)examined career adaptability relative to the job search process in Chinese university graduates,?nding that career adaptability was associated with more favorable appraisals of job search self-ef?cacy which,in turn,predicted later employment status and aspects of ?t to the new work environment.In a study of Serbian business students,Tolentino et al.(2014)found that career adaptability was related to entrepreneurial career intentions through entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy,particularly among participants with exposure to a family business.Other studies have reported that career adaptability partially mediated the relation of personality factors to work engagement (Rossier et al.2012)and explained unique variance in career satisfaction and self-rated performance beyond personality factors (Zacher 2014a).

A few investigations have examined aspects of change or malleability in career adaptability.In a longitudinal study of Australian workers,Zacher (2014b)found that age,education,future temporal focus,and certain personality dimensions predicted change in one or more of the four dimensions of career adaptability over time.In a quasi-experimental study with Dutch university graduates,Koen et al.(2012)offered training designed to promote career adaptability.Relative to a control group,they found that those receiving training exhibited positive change on three of the four adaptability dimensions.A six-month follow-up indicated that,among those who subsequently found employment,participants who had received adaptability training fared better than controls on indicators of employment quality (e.g.,higher job satisfaction,lower turnover intentions).

In sum,the recent literature on career adaptability,particularly that involving the CAAS,is remarkable both in the amount of research generated in a short time and in the breadth of variables to which adaptability has been related.A useful future research direction might include study of how adaptability functions relative to preparation for,or adaptation to,work transitions.For example,might higher levels of career adaptability promote more thorough preparation for work changes (e.g.,via anticipatory marshaling of coping resources or proactive skill updating)or more resilience (e.g.,quicker recovery)when adverse work events occur?It may also be useful to clarify the types of criterion variables that career adaptability should,theoretically,explain.Such added theoretical precision may help to target particularly salient questions (e.g.,what is the role of career adaptability relative,say,to social support and other psychosocial resources in the process and aftermath of work changes?).

Self-Ef?cacy

In this section,we discuss ?ndings on self-ef?cacy and related social cognitive variables in relation to a broad array of educational and work topics.In later sections,we highlight inquiry on social cognitive variables speci?cally within the context of STEM domains as well as in relation to well-being outcomes.

Self-ef?cacy,interest,and choice.One of the more active areas of career self-ef?cacy inquiry has involved tests of social cognitive career theory’s interest and choice models (Lent et al.1994).In brief,these models hypothesize that career-relevant interests are largely a function of self-ef?cacy (beliefs about personal capabilities)and outcome expectations (beliefs about the consequences of actions),in particular performance domains (e.g.,science,arts).People are likely to make educa-tional and occupational choices that are consistent with their interests,self-ef?cacy,and outcome expectations,particularly if their preferred options are accompanied by favorable environmental conditions (e.g.,adequate supports,minimal barriers).Sheu et al.(2010)reported a meta-analysis of data from 45independent samples that had tested versions of the SCCT choice model.The results were reported separately by Holland themes (Holland 1997),which group people and envi-ronments into six primary types:(a )realistic (e.g.,preference for mechanical,manual,and physical tasks),(b )investigative (e.g.,preference for scienti?c and mathematical activities),(c )artistic (e.g.,preference for artistic and creative activities),(d )social (e.g.,preference for helping and teaching people),(e )enterprising (e.g.,preference for selling,leading,managing,and persuading people),and (f )conventional (e.g.,preference for an ordered work environment and engaging in detailed business tasks).

Sheu et al.(2010)found that the choice model generally ?t the data well across Holland themes,though self-ef?cacy (con?dence in successfully completing theme-related tasks)tended to con-tribute to the prediction of choice goals more indirectly,through outcome expectations (expected outcomes of engaging in theme-related tasks)and interests,than directly.In addition,contextual supports and barriers generally produced more reliable indirect paths to choice goals,via self-ef?cacy and outcome expectations,than direct ones.These ?ndings suggest a nuanced interplay among person and contextual variables in the career choice process.For example,contextual sup-ports and barriers (e.g.,the presence or absence of mentors or ?nancial resources)may bolster or temper self-ef?cacy and outcome expectations,which in turn may reshape interests and goals.Although Sheu et al.’s (2010)path analysis was based on cross-sectional data,several longitudinal studies have supported many of the hypothesized temporal linkages among the social cognitive variables,including the paths from self-ef?cacy to outcome expectations,interests,and goals (e.g.,Lent et al.2008,2010).

Self-ef?cacy,performance,and persistence.The relations of self-ef?cacy and other social cog-nitive variables to performance outcomes has been a topic of interest to researchers in educational and organizational psychology as well as vocational psychology,with some studies speci?cally aimed at testing SCCT’s performance model,which posits that academic and occupational per-formance (indicators of success)and persistence result from the interplay among ability or past performance,self-ef?cacy,outcome expectations,and performance goals.

Wright et al.(2013)examined the role of self-ef?cacy in relation to college students’per-formance and persistence behavior.They found that,controlling for gender,ethnicity,?rst-generation status,and prior performance,self-ef?cacy regarding academic capabilities was a good predictor of students’academic success as well as of their likelihood of remaining in college beyond their ?rst semester.Cupani &Pautassi (2013)examined the relations of social cognitive variables

to the academic performance (math grades)of Argentinian high school students.Consistent with hypotheses,numeric ability was linked to performance both directly and indirectly through math self-ef?cacy.Stronger self-ef?cacy and outcome expectations were each associated with more am-bitious performance goals,which in turn predicted better performance.Unexpectedly,however,ability was negatively associated with outcome expectations.

Two meta-analyses assessed the SCCT performance model during the period examined in this review.In the ?rst meta-analysis,support was found for the joint roles of ability and self-ef?cacy relative to college academic outcomes (Brown et al.2008).Measures of ability and high school performance predicted college grades both directly and indirectly through self-ef?cacy;however,the relation of ability/past performance to persistence was fully mediated by self-ef?cacy.Performance goals contributed to the prediction of persistence but not of grades.

In the second meta-analysis,Brown et al.(2011)tested the performance model in the context of work performance.As in the academic performance meta-analysis,goals did not explain unique variance in performance beyond that explained by self-ef?cacy and cognitive ability.It was also found that conscientiousness,a personality factor,was linked to performance both directly and indirectly,via self-ef?cacy.Thus,performance may pro?t not only from cognitive ability and technical skills but also from self-ef?cacy and conscientiousness,which enable workers to leverage their talents.Other work using longitudinal designs has tended to support the roles of goals and self-ef?cacy as antecedents of career performance (Abele &Spurk 2009)as well as hypothesized reciprocal links between self-ef?cacy and performance (Spurk &Abele 2014).

Self-ef?cacy,process behaviors,and the socioeconomic context.Many studies have exam-ined self-ef?cacy and other social cognitive variables in relation to process aspects of career devel-opment (Lent &Brown 2013),that is,agentic behaviors,such as decision making or job seeking,that people employ to achieve their educational and occupational objectives across varied per-formance domains and often in the face of obstacles (e.g.,economic limitations,work-family con?ict).Gibbons &Borders (2010)studied the college-going expectations of racially diverse and economically challenged middle schoolers whose parents had not attended college.They found that students’college-related self-ef?cacy and outcome expectations were predicted by perceived barriers (e.g.,?nancial limitations,lack of role models)and social supports relative to college at-tendance;self-ef?cacy and outcome expectations were,in turn,predictive of students’intentions to attend college.In a study of high school students in a high-poverty rural area,Ali &Saunders (2009)found that students’self-ef?cacy (related to educational and job-?nding skills)and outcome expectations (related to career decision making)predicted their level of career aspirations beyond social supports and economic variables.

Dahling et al.(2013)examined the job search goals of unemployed workers in the context of ?nancial strain and regional unemployment rates.They found that self-ef?cacy and outcome expectations were each positively related to search goals.Financial strain had a direct,negative relation with job search self-ef?cacy and indirect,negative relations (via self-ef?cacy)with job search outcome expectations and search goals,particularly under conditions of high regional unemployment.

Most of the process-oriented research on social cognitive variables has involved career decision-making self-ef?cacy in student samples.Mirroring ?ndings on content aspects of career choice (i.e.,goals to pursue particular career paths,such as science),research has shown that intention to engage in career exploration or decision-making activities is well predicted by career decision self-ef?cacy and outcome expectations.For example,Huang &Hsieh (2011)found that Taiwanese college students’self-ef?cacy and outcome expectations mediated the relation of family socioeco-nomic status (SES)to career exploration intentions.Self-ef?cacy and goals were each found to

account for unique variance in Australian high school students’career planning behavior,both in cross-sectional (Rogers et al.2008)and longitudinal studies (Rogers &Creed 2011).In a recent meta-analysis,Choi et al.(2012)reported that career decision self-ef?cacy is related strongly and negatively with career indecision.In sum,self-ef?cacy has been linked to greater career exploration and job search intentions,more engagement in the career planning process,and lower levels of career indecision.

Self-ef?cacy sources and interventions.Researchers have also examined the learning experi-ences that are assumed to give rise to self-ef?cacy and outcome expectations.Thompson &Dahling (2012)found that the primary sources of ef?cacy information (e.g.,performance accomplishments,vicarious learning)were,as hypothesized,related to college students’self-ef?cacy and outcome expectations across Holland themes.They also found that the paths from gender and perceived social status to self-ef?cacy and outcome expectations were partly mediated by the sources of self-ef?cacy in certain Holland themes,suggesting that gender and socioeconomic privilege pre-dict exposure to learning experiences that,in turn,help to shape career-relevant self-ef?cacy and outcome expectations.

Tokar et al.(2007)found that the paths from gender to the sources of ef?cacy information were partly mediated by conformance with gender role norms in particular Holland’s themes associated with gender-typed choices.These results suggest the interplay among person variables and socially mediated learning experiences that help to perpetuate the status quo.For example,women tend to receive more exposure to learning experiences that promote ef?cacy at social than at realistic activities,along with encouragement to conform to gender role norms.Career-relevant choices may thus become constrained in part through an environmental shaping process that fosters internalized beliefs about personal ef?cacy and the range of acceptable occupational options for one’s sex.

Several researchers have designed and tested educational or counseling methods to help pro-mote bene?cial ef?cacy beliefs.For example,Betz &Borgen (2009)compared the effects of two online career exploration systems with undecided college freshmen.Both systems were associated with signi?cant increases in career decision self-ef?cacy and decidedness about college majors.Positive changes in career decision self-ef?cacy and related outcomes (e.g.,vocational identity)have been reported with other online (Tirpak &Schlosser 2013)and career course (Scott &Ciani 2008)interventions as well.(For a review of research on interventions and experimental studies relative to change in self-ef?cacy and other social cognitive constructs,see Sheu &Lent 2015.)

Work Volition

Work volition has been de?ned as “the perceived capacity to make occupational choices despite constraints”(e.g.,Jadidian &Duffy 2012,p.155).Volition is a key notion in the psychology of working perspective (Blustein 2006,Blustein et al.2008).Blustein (2006)argued that,given their life circumstances (e.g.,income,race/ethnicity,availability of resources),many people are not suf?ciently privileged to make unencumbered work choices or to work in their ideal careers.Thus,extant theories that emphasize agency may be less relevant to those with less privilege.Two speci?c hypotheses about the role of work volition in the occupational choice and attainment process have been suggested:(a )A negative relationship exists between work volition and the number of constraints that people encounter,and (b )the relationship between agentic-like career variables (e.g.,self-ef?cacy beliefs,goals)and choices is moderated by work volition (e.g.,the path from self-ef?cacy to goals in the SCCT choice model should be weaker for those with less volition and stronger for those with more volition)(Duffy et al.2014b).

Relative to the ?rst hypothesis,statistically signi?cant but small negative relations of work volition to career barrier perceptions have been found in student (Duffy et al.2012b)and adult (Duffy et al.2012c)samples,suggesting that those with a greater sense of control over their work lives tend to perceive somewhat fewer hurdles to their occupational progress.In a study testing the second hypothesis among undergraduate science majors,Duffy et al.(2014b)found that volition did not moderate self-ef?cacy/outcome expectation or self-ef?cacy/goal relations in the SCCT choice model.That is,these relations were comparable regardless of level of volition.Other research has found work volition to relate strongly to career decision self-ef?cacy (Duffy et al.2012b,Jadidian &Duffy 2012)and moderately to academic satisfaction (Jadidian &Duffy 2012)in college students.Duffy and colleagues found that,controlling for self-ef?cacy,work volition explained unique variance in the job satisfaction of employed workers (Duffy et al.2013c)and the life satisfaction of unemployed workers (Duffy et al.2013b).

On balance,this modest set of ?ndings suggests that perceptions of control over one’s work life may contribute directly to broad affective outcomes but do not moderate paths in the SCCT choice model.Although further construct validity data are needed,the work volition measure appears to represent a generalized sense of ef?cacy,or agency,in the career domain (Brown 2015).Like career adaptability,work volition may translate or “carry”the effects of personality traits into the career domain.Because predictors tend to produce larger relations with criterion variables to the extent that they are well matched with them in terms of content,context,and level of speci?city (Ajzen 1988),work volition may improve upon nondomain-speci?c personality indices in predicting career-relevant outcomes.By the same token,work volition may account for unique variance beyond more task-speci?c measures of self-ef?cacy in predicting overall job and life satisfaction because it may better match the latter at a global (versus speci?c)level of measurement.

EQUITY:SOCIAL JUSTICE IN CAREER DEVELOPMENT

A commitment to social justice is a central value of vocational psychology science and practice (Blustein 2006).In this section,we review research on the career development of persons who are underrepresented in particular career paths (women and most racial/ethnic minority groups in STEM ?elds)or who often face substantial hurdles in educational and occupational settings (e.g.,underserved youth,survivors of domestic violence).

Educational and Occupational Attainment and Success of Underserved Youth

Much has been written about how experiences associated with poverty (e.g.,lack of ?nancial re-sources,under-resourced schools,lack of role models,neighborhood violence)can severely limit the types of occupations available to and attainable by poor youth as they grow into adulthood (e.g.,Arbona 2000).Youth growing up under lower socioeconomic conditions tend to have dis-proportionately lower rates of occupational attainment compared to more af?uent youth (https://www.wendangku.net/doc/288487559.html,c.Stat.2002).Poor youth of color may experience additional sociopolitical barriers to occupational attainment (e.g.,structural racism and discrimination),compounding the long-term effects of poverty on occupational attainment (e.g.,Blustein 2006).In this section,we review vocational psychology research on the linkage of poverty and race to occupational attainment.Socioeconomic status and occupational attainment.Research has explored the direct and mediated effects of SES (usually indexed by some combination of parents’education,occupation,and income)on educational or occupational aspirations or expectations.Aspirations re?ect the amount of education or level of occupational attainment adolescents hope to attain (under ideal conditions).Expectations involve the educational or occupational level that adolescents expect

to achieve (under current conditions).Although aspirations are frequently not realized,higher aspirations are associated with more favorable occupational outcomes,perhaps in part because low aspirations prompt avoidance of educational experiences that can facilitate higher attainment (Howard et al.2011).Both aspirations and expectations have been found to predict educational and occupational attainment (with educational attainment also predicting later occupational attainment;Lee &Rojewski 2009,Mello 2008).It is,therefore,important to understand the pathways through which they operate.

Several studies (Ali &Sanders 2009,Garriott et al.2013,Navarro et al.2007)used SCCT (Lent et al.1994)to explore the relations of social class to educational or occupational expecta-tions.Both Garriott et al.(2013)and Navarro et al.(2007)found that the relation of social class to math/science goals (expectations,or intentions,to take math courses)was completely medi-ated by past performance in math classes,which in turn had positive relations with mathematics self-ef?cacy.Math self-ef?cacy then predicted intentions.Garriott et al.(2013)found that math outcome expectations also predicted course-taking intentions among prospective ?rst-generation college students,but Navarro et al.(2007)did not ?nd such a link in a sample of Mexican American eighth-graders.Ali &Sanders (2009)found that SES and vocational/educational self-ef?cacy and outcome expectations each contributed to the prediction of occupational aspirations among rural adolescents,but they did not test for possible mediation effects.

Two other studies employing adolescent samples reported that academic ability and achieve-ment mediated the relationship between SES and occupational expectations.Cochrane et al.(2011)found that the SES–occupational expectation relationship was mediated by scores on a test of vocational aptitude,whereas Schmitt-Wilson (2013)found that the relationship was medi-ated by academic achievement and by parent and student educational expectations.That is,SES positively predicted academic achievement and parents’educational expectations,parental expec-tations positively predicted student educational expectations,and student educational achievement and expectations positively predicted students’occupational expectations.

The importance of parental educational expectations and adolescent school achievement was underscored in a 34-year longitudinal analysis of data collected from a British cohort born in 1970(Ashby &Schoon 2010).Parent educational expectations when participants were 16years old related to concurrent levels of students’career aspirations and school achievement.Career aspirations and school achievement then predicted occupational status when participants were 34years old.SES accounted for about 25%of the variance in parent educational expectations.In a longitudinal analysis of a national database in the United States,Ling &O’Brien (2013)found that,among non-college-bound youth,high school educational attainment predicted adult job attainment,stability,and quality.Number of jobs held and hours worked in high school were the only other variables that predicted adult job stability and quality.

Some scholars have criticized traditional SES indicators based on parents’education,occu-pation,and income as failing to capture the psychological aspects of social class (e.g.,Diemer &Ali 2009,Fouad &Brown 2000).They have argued that measures of perceived social status will account for more variance in vocational and educational outcomes than do traditional indi-cators.Several studies have recently explored perceived social status in the vocational psychology literature.Matheny &McWhirter (2013)reported that the relation of SES to career decision-making self-ef?cacy beliefs was mediated by perceived social status.Thompson &Dahling (2012)found that the relation of perceived social status to self-ef?cacy beliefs and outcome expectations was mediated by learning experiences.These results suggest that adolescents with lower social class backgrounds may perceive that they have lower social status (e.g.,less power to affect their lives and less access to resources),which is associated with differential access to learning experiences that underlie decisional and occupationally relevant self-ef?cacy and outcome expectations.

In sum,?ndings suggest that social class may limit the occupational attainment of children and adolescents growing up in low-SES families in part via several intervening variables,including (a )parental educational expectations;(b )adolescent educational expectations,school achievement,and aptitude;and (c )academic and subject matter self-ef?cacy beliefs and outcome expectations.Each of these variables suggests avenues for intervention to promote the educational and occu-pational expectations (and later attainment)of poor youth.Adolescent perceptions of power and resources (perceived social status)may also mediate between social class and these other outcomes and,thus,provide another potential target for intervention.

Race/ethnicity and occupational attainment.The educational and occupational aspirations and expectations of youth of color have also received concerted research attention in recent years,with a particular focus on variables that may mediate or mitigate the effects of racism and dis-crimination on educational and occupational behavior.Three major types of variables,sometimes studied in the context of SCCT,tended to receive the bulk of the attention:(a )supports and barriers;(b )racial/ethnic identity and social political development (SPD);and (c )acculturation,enculturation,and related variables (e.g.,Anglo versus Mexican orientation).

Three studies (Ali &Menke 2014,Irvin et al.2012,McWhirter et al.2007)explored racial/ethnic differences in perceptions of barriers between students of color and white high school students.All three reported that Latino high school students reported more barriers to pursuing postsecondary education than did white students,especially barriers related to parent support and expectations,separation from family,and inadequate preparation (McWhirter et al.2007).Irvin et al.(2012)found that African American high school students perceived more barriers than did their white,but not Latino,counterparts.Despite the imbalance in barrier perceptions,the Latino students in Ali &Menke’s (2014)study reported stronger vocational/educational self-ef?cacy beliefs and similar levels of aspirations relative to white students,suggesting that they may not have perceived the barriers to be insurmountable.Ojeda &Flores (2008),however,found that the perception of barriers accounted for unique variance (beyond gender,generational level,and parents’education)in Mexican American high school students’aspirations.Thompson (2013)reported that perceptions of ethnic discrimination and classicism correlated negatively with coping ef?cacy beliefs in a sample of Native American college students.

In terms of supports,Gibbons &Borders (2010)reported that both parent and teacher supports related positively to the college-going self-ef?cacy beliefs of seventh-graders who were prospective ?rst-generation college students.Perry et al.(2010)found that both teacher and parent career support related to the amount of career planning engaged in by urban (mostly minority)high school students.Career planning,in turn,related positively to school grades via school engagement.In other words,students who engaged in career planning were also more engaged in school and displayed higher levels of school achievement,a set of ?ndings that has important implications for the role of career planning activities in school achievement.

Ethnic identity,de?ned as identi?cation with one’s ethnic group and participation in shared cultural activities (Phinney 1996),has long been assumed to play a positive role in the career development of racial/ethnic group members.Although Byars-Winston et al.(2010)found that ethnic identity did not contribute to the prediction of STEM goals of college students of color,Tovar-Murray et al.(2012)found that ethnic identity interacted with experiences of racism-related stress to predict levels of career aspirations in African American college students.Speci?cally,racism-related stress was associated positively with career aspirations when ethnic identity was well de?ned,but negatively among those with a less integrated identity,suggesting that ethnic identity may serve as a protective factor in the context of racism-related stress.

Another potential protective factor studied during the review period was SPD,which is seen as an internal resource that marginalized individuals can draw on to cope with inequality.SPD is hypothesized to consist of (a )motivation to change sociopolitical inequalities and (b )development of a positive self-de?nition in the context of oppression (Diemer et al.2009).Research with poor youth of color has demonstrated that SPD accounts for unique variance in occupational expectations (Diemer &Hsieh 2008)and that SPD,along with academic achievement in the tenth grade,predicted adult (age 26)occupational attainment via tenth-and twelfth-grade occupational expectations (Diemer 2009).These ?ndings suggest that interventions that aid children of color in developing positive ethnic identities and SPD beliefs may promote persistence in the face of adversity,yielding (along with school achievement)more positive vocational expectations and,in the case of SPD,increased occupational attainment.

The roles of acculturation (orientation to host culture)and enculturation (orientation to home culture)have also been studied relative to the career development of people of color in the United States.Several studies found that orientation to Anglo culture (acculturation),though not to Mexican culture (enculturation),accounted for unique variance in the educational goals (Flores et al.2006)and educational aspirations and expectations (Flores et al.2008)of Mexican American high school students.Both types of cultural orientation explained variance in college self-ef?cacy,though only Anglo orientation contributed to prediction of outcome expectations in Mexican American college students (Ojeda et al.2011).Chen &Fouad (2013)found that Asian American college students’intentions to pursue advanced degrees were predicted by enculturation (but not acculturation),academic achievement,and the value of honoring one’s parents.Thus,the role of acculturation and enculturation may depend on the racial/ethnic group and the criterion of interest.Other studies have suggested that achievement motivation (Caldwell &Obasi 2010),autono-mous motivation (i.e.,engaging in school work out of a desire to learn rather than due to co-ercion;Close &Solberg 2008),and autonomy support (i.e.,receiving support from teachers for autonomously motivated school behaviors;Kenny et al.2010)may also relate to the academic performance and self-ef?cacy beliefs of urban high school students and college students of color.Caldwell &Obasi (2010)reported that achievement motivation and valuing of education added uniquely to the prediction of academic performance in African American college students.Close &Solberg (2008)found that autonomous motivation was linked to grades obtained by urban freshmen and sophomore high school students via academic self-ef?cacy beliefs,whereas Kenny et al.(2010)found that autonomy support from teachers was related to levels of achievement motivation displayed by urban high school students.

In sum,?ndings suggest that students of color often perceive more barriers to educational and occupational attainment than do white students.On the other hand,several types of factors,such as parent and teacher supports,robust ethnic and sociopolitical identities,and autonomous and achievement motivation,may potentially facilitate career development in the face of barriers.Acculturation to mainstream culture may also aid some groups (e.g.,Mexican Americans)but not others (e.g.,Asian Americans)in fostering positive educational expectations.Each of these potential protective factors is theoretically amenable to intervention and deserves further research attention.

STEM Entry and Retention of Women and People of Color

Federal policy makers have raised repeated concerns about the supply of workers available to enter STEM careers.The problem is perceived as a general supply-demand issue as well as a social justice matter in that women and particular racial/ethnic groups continue to be underrepresented in STEM educational and occupational paths.Vocational psychology research has,therefore,

focused on factors that predict initial interest and choice,as well as persistence,in STEM pursuits,particularly over the lengthy period of educational preparation prior to career entry wherein earlier math and science choices and performances tend to grant (or inhibit)access to later STEM options.Person and contextual variables.Several investigators have focused on person-level variables,such as interests,that may promote or deter selection of STEM options.Iskander et al.(2013)examined archival data from the American College Testing (ACT)program over a 30-year period on expressed interest patterns,ACT scores,gender,and intended college majors or careers.Results con?rmed a signi?cant discrepancy in the number of male and female students expressing interest in engineering majors and careers.However,they also found that female students with interests in STEM ?elds tend to be well prepared academically,based on their ACT scores.This is a positive sign given that sustained STEM pursuits require ability and skill development beyond interests alone.

Moakler &Kim (2014),employing a large national database on college freshmen,reported that students were more likely to choose STEM majors if they had strong con?dence in mathematics (a variable conceptually related to self-ef?cacy)and parents in STEM occupations.It is possible that these parents provided their children with greater access to ef?cacy-relevant learning experiences (e.g.,role modeling,performance opportunities)related to STEM careers.Re?ecting prior trends,female students were less likely than males to choose STEM majors.Of course,once women select STEM majors,they often must still contend with a host of contextual challenges to their persis-tence.Morganson et al.(2010)studied the use of social coping (e.g.,actively seeking social support)among women and men in computer science classes.Women reported engaging in more social coping,which differentially predicted their college major commitment and persistence intentions.Other research has focused on contextual variables that may enable or discourage interest and involvement in children’s STEM pursuits.Ing (2014),using data from a large-scale longitudinal study,examined the role of parent behavior relative to STEM outcomes in middle school and high school students.She reported that,controlling for gender,ethnicity,and parent educational level,parents’intrinsically oriented motivational practices,such as conveying the importance of math along with high expectations regarding effort and success,encouraged growth in students’math performance and STEM persistence between the seventh and twelfth grades.In addition,levels of seventh-grade achievement and growth over time in math achievement forecast STEM persistence.Fouad et al.(2010)developed a multidimensional measure of contextual supports and barriers to pursuing STEM educational and career options.They did not ?nd signi?cant gender differences in overall supports or barriers,though interesting variations were observed in support and barrier perceptions as a function of educational level (e.g.,students generally perceived more math-related barriers and fewer supports with increasing education).

Model tests.The above studies focused mainly on individual person or contextual variables,often without explicit theoretical grounding.By contrast,the studies in this subsection involved fuller sets of person and contextual variables,typically using SCCT as a conceptual base.For example,Garriott et al.(2014)examined the role of parent support (e.g.,encouragement to do well in math)along with math/science-based sources of ef?cacy information as precursors of math/science interests in a sample of high school students of color.They found that parent support was positively related to most of the ef?cacy sources and that two of the sources,performance accomplishments and vicarious learning,uniquely predicted math/science self-ef?cacy,which was,in turn,linked to interest.

Several other studies have tested SCCT’s models with the addition of a variety of variables designed to tap gender-related,cultural,or socioeconomic aspects of the STEM environment.

Deemer et al.(2014)conceptualized stereotype threat as a type of contextual barrier to women’s pursuit of STEM options.They studied a sample of female undergraduate students in science classes and found that stereotype threat (operationalized as perceptions of gender stereotypes regarding science activities)was negatively related to science-related choice goals via self-ef?cacy beliefs and intentions to pursue undergraduate research activities.That is,stereotype threat was associated with diminished self-ef?cacy beliefs and research intentions,which in turn predicted weaker science goals.

Flores et al.(2010)examined the relations of contextual-cultural variables (e.g.,Anglo and Mexican orientation),self-ef?cacy,and interests to the career choice goals of Mexican American college students regarding Holland’s realistic (e.g.,mechanical-technical)and inves-tigative (e.g.,scienti?c-mathematic)themes.Byars-Winston et al.(2010)assessed the context in terms of perceptions of campus climate and included two cultural orientation variables (ethnic identity and other-group orientation)in a sample of racial-ethnic minority science and engineer-ing majors.Garriott et al.(2013)studied the linkage of social class to math/science goal inten-tions in a racially diverse,mostly female sample of high school students participating in a college preparation program.Navarro et al.(2007)included social class,along with Anglo and Mexican cultural orientation,in their model predicting the math/science goals of Mexican American mid-dle school students.Garriott et al.(2013)and Navarro et al.(2007)also included other measures of social supports and/or barriers as well as ef?cacy-based learning sources (e.g.,performance accomplishments).

Despite the number and variety of their predictors,and the complexity of their ?ndings,at least two general patterns are evident regarding the above studies.First,the authors generally reported indications of good overall model-data ?t of the SCCT variations,though not all so-cial cognitive variables explained unique predictive variance in every study.Second,contextual and culture-speci?c variables generally related to math/science interests and choices indirectly,through social cognitive person variables,supporting the view that the latter are informed by and help to mediate the effects of more distal person,contextual-cultural,and learning experience variables.Although it is important to devote more research to the presumed temporal ordering of these variables,a few longitudinal studies have yielded theory-consistent ?ndings in samples of students underrepresented in STEM ?elds (e.g.,Lent et al.2010,Navarro et al.2014).

Researchers have also examined whether SCCT’s interest and choice models ?t the data dif-ferentially as a function of gender or race/ethnicity.Findings generally suggest invariance of ?t across gender and race/ethnicity in samples of undergraduate STEM majors (Flores et al.2014;Lent et al.2011a,2013)and in middle school students (Navarro et al.2007).The cultural gen-erality of the models has also been examined in international samples,with ?ndings showing adequate model-data ?t across gender in South Korean (Kim &Seo 2014)and Spanish (Inda et al.2013)engineering students.In a study of female engineers in the United States,Singh et al.(2013)found that training and development experiences at work (conceptualized as contextual supports that inform self-ef?cacy and outcome expectations)predicted job attitudes both directly and through outcome expectations.Job attitudes (satisfaction and organizational commitment),in turn,strongly predicted turnover intentions (i.e.,more favorable attitudes were associated with less turnover intent).

Collectively,the ?ndings in this section point to the importance of environmentally mediated experiences that can be marshaled via interventions to attract more women and students of color to,and to encourage their persistence within,STEM ?elds.In addition,these ?ndings point to the mechanisms through which contextual supports,barriers,and learning experiences may operate relative to STEM participation (i.e.,by promoting favorable self-ef?cacy and outcome expectations).

Promoting Work Participation of Survivors of Domestic Violence and Criminal Offenders

The vocational needs of two groups that have previously been understudied by vocational researchers—survivors of domestic violence and criminal offenders—received long overdue at-tention during the period this review examined.

Domestic abuse can have a signi?cant impact on the economic well-being of survivors and their families via lost hours and wages,underemployment and unemployment,and hindered ed-ucational attainment (Chronister et al.2012).Several qualitative studies documented the barriers to occupational and educational attainment experienced by domestic abuse survivors (e.g.,Brown et al.2009,Chronister et al.2008),and one intervention showed promising results.The Advanc-ing Career Counseling and Employment Support for Survivors of Domestic Violence (ACCESS)program has been found to relate to gains in career search self-ef?cacy and critical consciousness beliefs (Chronister &McWhirter 2006,Davidson et al.2012)and reductions in career barriers,anxiety,and depression (Davidson et al.2012).Chronister &McWhirter (2006)suggested that it is essential to help domestic abuse survivors develop a critical understanding of the power dynamics in their lives and a renewed sense of control and responsibility (critical consciousness),although the hypothesis has not received direct testing in career intervention research.Chronister et al.(2012)described how the ACCESS program was incorporated into a comprehensive,collabora-tive partnership with a domestic abuse service agency.Further research is needed to assess the employment outcomes of ACCESS participants.

A number of factors have been identi?ed that place criminal offenders at high risk for recidi-vism,including employment problems associated with a lack of job skills,experience,and networks;limited education;substance abuse history;and employers’attitudes and willingness to hire ex-offenders (Brown 2011).One study (Fitzgerald et al.2013)tested the effectiveness of a modi?ed version of ACCESS (Chronister &McWhirter 2006)versus a treatment-as-usual control with a sample of male inmates who were within six months of https://www.wendangku.net/doc/288487559.html,pared with controls,ACCESS participants showed greater increases in career search self-ef?cacy and perceived problem-solving abilities at post-treatment and one-month follow-up.No follow-up data on recidivism or em-ployment rates were reported.Varghese (2013)proposed an integrative framework for directing interventions aimed at job attainment and stability needs.Research is needed on the ef?cacy of this model in promoting occupational outcomes as well as reducing recidivism.

WELL-BEING:POSITIVE ADAPTATION TO SCHOOL AND WORK SETTINGS

Vocational psychology has long been concerned with factors that promote well-being in educa-tional and work settings.In this section,we focus on two different perspectives on well-being.The hedonic perspective de?nes well-being in terms of the presence of positive affect (e.g.,hap-piness,satisfaction)and the absence of negative affect (e.g.,sadness).The eudaimonic perspective equates well-being with living a good or meaningful life.Our discussion of the hedonic perspec-tive focuses on educational and job satisfaction as well as the relationships of academic and job satisfaction to life satisfaction.Our coverage of the eudaimonic perspective includes research on selected variables that may index personal growth,meaning,and healthy engagement in work.

Hedonic Well-Being:Job,Academic,and Life Satisfaction

A number of studies over the period of this review were derived from Lent &Brown’s (2006,2008)SCCT model of work satisfaction,an adaptation of SCCT aimed at explaining the ways in

which social,cognitive,trait,and behavioral variables contribute to affective outcomes in academic and work settings.Tests of the full model have generally reported that it provided good overall ?t to the data,but support for speci?c paths in the model has been less consistent.For example,self-ef?cacy has been found to relate to academic satisfaction directly in some studies (e.g.,Flores et al.2014,Lent et al.2012)or only indirectly via goal progress in others (e.g.,Hui et al.2013,Singley et al.2010).Environmental supports (e.g.,perceived organizational support,goal or role support;Buyukgoze-Kavas et al.2014,Lent et al.2011b,Singley et al.2010)and positive affectivity (Buyukgoze-Kavas et al.2014,Lent et al.2011b)have also been linked consistently to academic or job satisfaction in model tests.

Findings have largely supported the hypothesized relationship between academic/work and life satisfaction (Ojeda et al.2011,Lent et al.2011b,Sheu et al.2014).However,one longitudinal study found that the relationship between domain and life satisfaction was largely unidirectional (from academic to life satisfaction;Lent et al.2012)rather than reciprocal,as had been hypothesized.These ?ndings suggest that domain satisfaction may be an important source of life satisfaction for many persons and that interventions designed to promote satisfaction in career-relevant domains may have valuable implications for overall life satisfaction.

As noted previously,work volition has also received attention in the job and life satisfaction literatures.This research has shown that work volition may have a direct relation to the job satisfaction of employed workers (Duffy et al.2013c)and the life satisfaction of unemployed workers (Duffy et al.2013b).The research has also identi?ed some interesting moderator effects of volition.Duffy et al.(2013b)found that perceived organizational support was more strongly related to job satisfaction among those with lower versus higher volition.Dik &Hansen (2011)also demonstrated that a volition-like variable (perceived control over the work environment)moderated the relationship between P-E congruence and job satisfaction.However,the moderator relationship was opposite to what might be expected on the basis of the psychology of working framework—the relationship was stronger under conditions of low perceived work control than under conditions of high control.Thus,P-E ?t may be more,rather than less,important to the job satisfaction of those with low work volition,who may perceive that they have fewer alternative work options if things do not work out as planned.

Eudaimonic Well-Being:Calling,Meaning,Commitment,and Engagement

A number of studies have also focused on elements of eudaimonic well-being in the context of educational and vocational functioning.Such research emphasizes school and work as contexts for actualizing personal potential or growth,seeking life meaning and purpose,or doing good (e.g.,helping others)versus feeling good.In many cases,research has focused on eudaimonic variables in relation to hedonic or other,more distal outcomes rather than as ends in themselves.Calling:De?nitions and measures.A good deal of recent eudaimonic research in vocational psychology has involved the concept of vocational calling,which Dik &Duffy (2009)de?ned as “...a transcendent summons ,experienced as originating beyond the self,to approach a particular life role in a manner oriented toward demonstrating or deriving a sense of purpose or meaningfulness and that holds other-oriented values and goals as primary sources of motivation”(p.427;italics added for emphasis).This is a complex de?nition that contains three relatively distinct elements:(a )the sense that one has been compelled by external forces,such as a supreme being,to select a particular life role (usually considered as a vocational path);(b )the expectation that one derives purpose or meaning from engaging in this role;and (c )the added requirement that the role involves service to others.Although the prior literature contains numerous variables that resemble the latter two

elements (e.g.,altruistic work values),the transcendent summons element is,arguably,the core and most distinctive aspect of calling.

Dik et al.(2012)developed a set of measures,the Calling and Vocation Questionnaire (CVQ)and the Brief Calling Scale (BCS),to capture the three elements of calling,both in terms of whether they are experienced as present in people’s work lives and whether they are actively seeking them.These investigators reported that the transcendent summons,purposeful work,and prosocial orientation features constitute relatively distinct calling dimensions.The CVQ combines them into two 12-item scales re?ecting,respectively,the presence of,and search for,calling.The BCS consists of two 2-item scales that measure an overall sense of calling that one has either attained (e.g.,“I have a calling to a particular kind of work”)or that one is seeking (e.g.,“I am trying to ?gure out my calling in my career”).The presence and search scales of the CVQ and BCS scales were shown to interrelate strongly and to correlate,to varying degrees,with a variety of vocational (e.g.,work hope)and nonvocational (e.g.,meaning in life)criteria.Their relations to life satisfaction were nonsigni?cant.

Duffy et al.(2012a)also assessed calling in terms of the degree to which persons are “living a calling”in their current work (i.e.,the work one does is congruent with one’s calling).This measure produced stronger relations with job satisfaction than did the BCS presence of calling scale.Alternative calling measures have been developed that tap aspects of calling that are similar to (e.g.,transcendent guiding force,service to others)and somewhat distinct from (e.g.,sense of P-E ?t,passion for one’s work)those on the Dik-Duffy measures (Hagmaier &Abele 2012,Praskova et al.2014).These measures offer a variety of ways to index calling,and their additional elements raise interesting questions about the essence of the construct.In particular,must one perceive a transcendent summons to have a calling?Or is the essential feature engagement in work for which one feels a strong sense of passion,P-E ?t,or ful?llment of altruistic values?If the latter,then what is gained by de?ning calling in terms of externally impelled work behavior?

Calling in relation to work meaning,commitment,and other outcomes.Most of the recent research on calling in vocational psychology has involved the measures developed by Dik,Duffy,and their colleagues.In a review,Duffy &Dik (2013)concluded that calling,particularly when measured as lived calling,has been related to greater levels of career maturity,career commitment,work meaning,and job satisfaction as well as to more general outcomes (e.g.,global life meaning,life satisfaction).Beyond establishing bivariate relations,researchers have been exploring medi-ators and moderators of calling-criterion relations.For example,Duffy et al.(2011a)found that the relation of calling to academic satisfaction in college students was mediated by career decision self-ef?cacy and work hope.Other cross-sectional studies have found that the relation of calling to job satisfaction in employed adults was mediated by career commitment (Duffy et al.2011b)or by both career commitment and work meaning (Duffy et al.2012a,2013a).A few studies have examined calling-criterion relations longitudinally and have found that the predominant temporal paths tend to be from other variables—such as life meaning (Duffy et al.2011c)or career commit-ment,work meaning,and job satisfaction (Duffy et al.2014a)—to calling,though some reciprocal paths from calling to criterion variables (e.g.,work and life meaning)have also been found (Duffy et al.2014a,c).

Work meaning as an alternative to calling.The above ?ndings suggest that the perception of calling is associated with a greater sense of work meaning and career commitment and that these latter variables may either be antecedents of calling or may mediate the relation of calling to more distal (e.g.,job satisfaction)outcomes.It may,therefore,be useful to study such variables in their

own right.Steger et al.(2012)developed a measure of work meaning (the Work and Meaning Inventory)that taps the extent to which one sees one’s work as meaningful (e.g.,offering the experience self-understanding,purpose,personal growth,and bene?t to the greater good).This measure correlated strongly with measures of calling as well as with career commitment and job satisfaction.It was also found to predict job and life satisfaction and work absences beyond the effects of calling.

Steger et al.(2013)found that work meaning correlated strongly with work engagement and modestly with (trait)positive affect.They also reported that work meaning moderated the relation of positive affect to work engagement:When work was perceived as less meaningful,workers with high versus low levels of positive affect were more strongly engaged in their work.However,when work was seen as more meaningful,those with high and low levels of positive affect did not differ in work engagement.Thus,work meaning may compensate for low positive affect as a source of work engagement.Adopting a psychology of working perspective,Allan et al.(2014)found a small but signi?cant relation between work meaning and social class,with persons of higher (versus lower)social class reporting more work meaning.This link was mediated by work volition and ?nancial constraints,suggesting that the control and resources conferred by social class may differentially promote (or constrain)the pursuit of personally meaningful work.

In sum,research on eudaimonic variables has been a fertile topic of career inquiry in recent years.Findings suggest that the relation of calling to criterion variables,such as job satisfaction and work engagement,is typically mediated by (and,in some instances,may be a re?ection of )work meaning and other variables (e.g.,career commitment).Whether calling offers unique predictive value,therefore,remains an open empirical question.The response to this question may require further conceptual clarity regarding what calling is (and is not)and added research on the in-cremental validity of transcendent summons relative to work meaning,passion,virtuous motives,P-E ?t perceptions,and other variables that are sometimes considered a part of (and sometimes apart from)calling.The issue is not whether some persons view their work in spiritual terms but rather how this perception translates into work-relevant outcomes.

Work meaning represents another potentially fruitful path for research on eudaimonic well-being,either in combination with or apart from calling.Yet it,too,may raise some interesting,and potentially controversial,issues.For example,to what extent is work meaning (and other aspects of eudaimonic well-being,such as personal growth and self-actualization)enabled by social class,volition,or work conditions that favor self-expression or goal choice?Must meaningful work serve the greater good?Or does it simply lie in the eye of the beholder;for example,can the self-absorbed and antisocial also ?nd meaning in their work?In other words,what does it mean to have work meaning,and who gets to have it?

SUMMARY AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

We reviewed the recent literature in vocational psychology (2007–2014)within the three over-arching themes of agency,equity,and well-being.Although these themes do not re?ect the only ways in which the literature could have been organized,they do convey a sense of the ?eld’s re-newed vitality and commitment to promoting optimal educational and work functioning,even in the midst of uncertain or unfavorable environmental conditions.We think the ?ndings reviewed herein offer several useful insights and directions for future research,both within and across the three themes.

The research reviewed under the agency and equity themes highlights the critical role of ed-ucational achievement in the occupational expectations and attainments of college-bound and non-college-bound https://www.wendangku.net/doc/288487559.html,cational achievement was also shown to be a critical mediating

pathway that explained,in part,the positive link between SES and occupational expectations and attainment.The research also suggests some pathways that might promote greater academic achievement of poor youth and youth of color,or that may operate in concert with academic per-formance to promote increased levels of occupational expectations and attainment.For instance,research on the SCCT academic performance model suggests two variables that are important to academic achievement—academic ability/past performance and self-ef?cacy beliefs.Academic ability was found to relate to performance both directly and indirectly by informing students’academic self-ef?cacy beliefs.Thus,efforts to promote self-ef?cacy beliefs that are optimistic yet commensurate with students’academic talents may foster increased academic performance.

Other variables were also found to be predictive of academic achievement either directly or via indirect pathways.These included parental expectations and support.Parent educational ex-pectations were important predictors of student occupational expectations and,in one case,actual occupational attainment via their relations to students’educational expectations and achievement.Parent support seemed to operate primarily as a source of ef?cacy information.SPD also showed promise as a means of promoting occupational expectations and attainments of poor youth of color via its relation to educational expectations and school performance.One intriguing ?nding sug-gested that engaging in career development activities may have a positive bearing on educational performance via greater school engagement.Many of these predictors of academic achievement are,theoretically,relatively malleable.The next step is to translate them into empirically testable interventions.

The ?ndings regarding STEM interests and choice intentions also point to the role of con-textual factors and learning experiences (e.g.,achievement opportunities,models)that can inform the design of interventions to attract more women and students of color to,and encourage their persistence within,STEM ?elds.These ?ndings also suggest the mechanisms through which such interventions may operate.For example,providing social encouragement,exposure to relevant models,assistance in interpreting performance feedback,or barrier-coping methods (e.g.,social coping)may promote STEM participation and persistence,at least in part by nurturing favorable self-ef?cacy beliefs and outcome expectations.

Research on educational and job satisfaction in the vocational psychology literature did not appear to substantially advance what was already known about the relations of perceived organiza-tional support,goal progress,and positive affectivity to the experience of satisfaction in academic and work settings.However,research using the SCCT satisfaction model suggested how these variables may operate together and,in particular,how goal progress might be facilitated (e.g.,via promotion of task and goal-related self-ef?cacy beliefs and supports).Such variables provide potential targets for efforts to enhance academic and work satisfaction.An understudied part of the SCCT model is the hypothesis that work-role salience,or importance,may moderate the relation of job and life satisfaction.That is,the path from job to life satisfaction may be stronger to the extent that work is perceived as a central feature of one’s personal identity.This suggests that efforts to promote job satisfaction may carry over into enhanced life satisfaction for persons with greater psychological investment in the work role,provided of course that future research supports the moderator hypothesis.

Several new or updated vocational constructs,including career adaptability,work volition,and calling,have potentially important implications for efforts to facilitate agency,equity,and well-being.These constructs have generated impressive amounts of research over a short period,no doubt aided by the availability of new measures for assessing them.At this stage,research on these constructs might bene?t from more precise theoretical overlays.For example,adaptability research might be aided by the provision of more speci?c hypotheses about the criterion variables with which adaptability should (and should not)relate and about the mediators and moderators of

these relations.For example,do more highly career-adaptable persons engage in more activities designed to prepare for untoward work events,and are they more resilient in bouncing back when such events occur?Likewise,research on calling may pro?t from theoretical efforts to differentiate it from conceptually similar or overlapping constructs.For example,is transcendent summons necessary to de?ne calling?If so,what is its unique predictive value (and for whom)?If not,then how does calling differ from such concepts as work meaning,work passion,altruistic value ful?llment,or perceptions of ideal P-E ?t?

Research on work volition to this point calls into question the assumption that extant voca-tional theories may be less relevant to,or predictive of,important career outcomes among poor and marginalized persons (Blustein 2006).The psychology of working perspective suggests that persons who feel little control over their work lives (e.g.,due to prevailing social and economic conditions)will consequently feel constrained in the occupational choice process.However,the limited research that is available suggests that persons who feel little volition in their work lives may bene?t more than those with greater volition from efforts to help them ?nd good-?tting work environments.This may be due,in part,to the limited alternative job options perceived by those with low volition.Thus,contrary to assumptions,the well-being of those with low rather than high volition might be particularly aided by efforts to promote P-E ?t and access to supportive work organizations.It is possible that,paradoxically,such activities may be less useful for people who perceive greater ?exibility to change jobs when things do not work out as expected.

Though still in its early stages,vocational psychology research on survivors of domestic vio-lence and criminal offenders has yielded some promising ?ndings and warrants additional research attention.Such research may pro?tably focus on whether theory-based interventions are associ-ated with improved employment rates and other indices of employment success (job satisfaction,life satisfaction,income,and tenure).Follow-up recidivism rates also need to be examined in intervention research with offenders/ex-offenders.

In sum,this has been a ripe period in the history of vocational psychology,with research moving beyond the ?eld’s traditional comfort zone and,increasingly,into topics that re?ect wider concerns with social justice,diversity,and promotion of optimal functioning under nonoptimal conditions.Further inquiry on these topics will be aided by conceptual statements that more clearly specify the nature and function of particular constructs.In addition,the translation of ?ndings into practice will require more design and testing of theory-based interventions.Newer approaches,such as career construction theory and the psychology of working perspective,offer added possibilities for studying variables and conditions that both allow and constrain the exercise of agency in school and work contexts.We anticipate that agency,equity,and well-being will receive sustained inquiry from vocational researchers in the years ahead,and that this inquiry will ultimately equip career practitioners with new and re?ned tools for serving a wider range of students and clients.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors are not aware of any af?liations,memberships,funding,or ?nancial holdings that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.LITERATURE CITED

Abele AE,Spurk D.2009.The longitudinal impact of self-ef?cacy and career goals on objective and subjective

career success.J.Vocat.Behav.74:53–62

Ajzen I.1988.Attitudes,Personality,and Behavior .Stony Stratford,UK:Open Univ.Press

Ali SR,Menke KA.2014.Rural Latino youth career development:an application of social cognitive career

theory.Career Dev.Q.62:175–86

Ali SR,Sanders JL.2009.The career aspirations of rural Appalachian high school students.J.Career Assess.

17:172–88

Allan BA,Autin KL,Duffy RD.2014.Examining social class and work meaning within the psychology of

working framework.J.Career Assess.22:543–61

Arbona C.2000.The development of academic achievement in school aged children:precursor to career

development.In Handbook of Counseling Psychology ,ed.SD Brown,RW Lent,pp.270–309.New York:Wiley.3rd ed.

Ashby JS,Schoon I.2010.Career success:the role of teenage career aspirations,ambition value,and gender

in predicting adult social status and earnings.J.Vocat.Behav.77:350–60

Betz NE,Borgen https://www.wendangku.net/doc/288487559.html,parative effectiveness of CAPA and FOCUS online:career assessment

systems with undecided college students.J.Career Assess.17:351–66

Blustein DL.2006.The Psychology of Working:A New Perspective for Career Development,Counseling,and Public

Policy .Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum

Blustein DL,Kenna AC,Gill N,Devoy JE.2008.The Psychology of Working:a new framework for counseling

practice and public policy.Career Dev.Q.56:294–308

Brown C.2011.Vocational psychology and ex-offenders’reintegration:a call for action.J.Career Assess.

19:333–42

Brown C,Trangsrud HB,Linnemeyer RM.2009.Battered women’s process of leaving:a 2-year follow-up.

J.Career Assess.17:439–56

Brown SD.2015.On statistical wizardry,construction proliferation,and other challenges for our science.

Couns.Psychol.43:614–28

Brown SD,Lent RW,Telander K,Tramayne S.2011.Social cognitive career theory,conscientiousness,and

work performance:a meta-analytic path analysis.J.Vocat.Behav.79:81–90

Brown SD,Tramayne S,Hoxha D,Telander K,Fan X,Lent RW.2008.Social cognitive predictors of college

students’academic performance and persistence:a meta-analytic path analysis.J.Vocat.Behav.72:298–308

Buyukgoze-Kavas A,Duffy RD,Guneri OY,Autin KL.2014.Job satisfaction among Turkish teachers:ex-ploring differences by school level.J.Career Assess.22:261–73

Byars-Winston A,Zalapa J,Howard C,Davis D.2010.In?uence of social cognitive and ethnic variables

on academic goals of underrepresented students in science and engineering:a multiple-groups analysis.J.Couns.Psychol.57:205–18

Caldwell T,Obasi EM.2010.Academic performance in African American undergraduates:effects of cultural

mistrust,educational value,and achievement motivation.J.Career Dev.36:348–69

Chen YL,Fouad https://www.wendangku.net/doc/288487559.html,n American educational goals:racial barriers and cultural factors.J.Career

Assess.21:73–91

Choi BY,Park H,Yang E,Lee SK,Lee Y,Lee SM.2012.Understanding career decision self-ef?cacy:a

meta-analytic approach.J.Career Dev.39:443–60

Chronister KM,Harley E,Aranda CL,Barr L,Luginbuhl https://www.wendangku.net/doc/288487559.html,munity-based career counseling for

women survivors of intimate partner violence:a collaborative partnership.J.Career Dev.39:515–39Chronister KM,Linville D,Kaag KP.2008.Domestic survivors’access of career counseling services:a qual-itative investigation.J.Career Dev.34:339–61

Chronister KM,McWhirter EH.2006.An experimental examination of two career interventions for battered

women.J.Couns.Psychol.53:151–64

Close W,Solberg VS.2008.Predicting achievement,distress,and retention among lower-income Latino

youth.J.Vocat.Behav.72:31–42

Cochrane DB,Wang EW,Stevenson SJ,Johnson LE,Crews C.2011.Adolescent occupational aspirations:

test of Gottfredson’s theory of circumscription and compromise.Career Dev.Q.59:412–27

Cupani M,Pautassi RM.2013.Predictive contribution of personality traits in a sociocognitive model of

academic performance in mathematics.J.Career Assess.21:395–413

Dahling JJ,Melloy R,Thompson MN.2013.Financial strain and regional unemployment as barriers to job

search self-ef?cacy:a test of social cognitive career theory.J.Couns.Psychol.60:210–18

Davidson MM,Nitzel C,Duke A,Baker CM,Bovaird JA.2012.Advancing career and employment support

for survivors:an intervention evaluation.J.Couns.Psychol.59:321–28