Journal of Counseling Psychology Copyright 1992 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1992. Vol. 39. No. 1.71-80 0022-0167/92/tt.OO

A Typology of Career Decision Status:

Validity Extension of the
Vocational Decision Status Model
Connie R. Wanberg and Paul M. Muchinsky
Iowa State University

Three hundred ninety college students completed a battery of scales assessing 10 dimensions of
vocational indecision and 9 personality constructs. Cluster-analytic procedures were applied to a
subset of the scaled constructs, whereas other measures served as external descriptors. A 4-cluster
solution was obtained, with the clusters being differentiated on the basis of vocational decidedness
and personal concern over the stage of career decision making. The resulting cluster solution was
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

successfully replicated internally. Effect sizes in excess of .30 were obtained for 8 variables in the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

cluster analyses and 2 external descriptors. The results are described in terms of their correspond-
ence to the vocational decision status model proposed by Jones and Chenery (1980).

The construct of vocational indecision purports to explain
why some individuals are uncertain about their choice of a
college major or future career, whereas others are committed
to their choices. Early research (e.g., Crites, 1969; Goodstein,
1965; Tyler, 1961) suggested that undecided individuals do
not represent a homogeneous group, but rather multiple forms
of indecision may exist. More recent research has been de-
voted to defining and explicating various typologies of career
undecided individuals.
One typology differentiates undecidedness from indecisive-
ness. Undecided individuals are hypothesized to be going
through a normal and temporary stage of development. They
are unable to specify a career choice, but they do not feel
pushed or stressed to make a decision. According to Salomone
(1982), these individuals delay a career decision to gather
more information about themselves, occupations, or the proc-
ess of decision making. Holland and Holland (1977) observed
that one half of the undecided individuals in their study
reported that "I don't have to make a decision right now."
Conversely, individuals in the career indecisive group do not
appear to be going through a normal stage of development,
and they have not delayed their vocational choice to gather
more information. Instead, it is proposed that these individ-
uals possess attributes that will not allow them to make a
decision readily. Salomone (1982) noted that such individuals
were characterized by high levels of ambivalence, anxiety,
and frustration; an unclear sense of personal identity; low self-
confidence and self-esteem; externalized locus of control; and
a tendency to blame others for their situation. Hartman,
Fuqua, and Hartman (1983) labeled this condition as "chronic
indecision." Although the differentiation between career un-
decidedness and career indecision is recognized as potentially
useful, Slaney (1988) commented that "very little progress has
been made thus far in demonstrating that the two constructs
are valid and discriminable" (pp. 44-45). Overall, there is no
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Paul M. Muchinsky, Department of Psychology, Iowa State Univer-
sity, Ames, Iowa 50011.
71
clear evidence that this is the best way to classify individuals
who have not specified a career choice.
A second typology of career indecision, called the voca-
tional decision status model, was proposed by Jones and
Chenery (1980). They proposed that undecided individuals
can be characterized according to three dimensions: (a) decid-
edness (the degree of an individual's indecision), (b) comfort
level (how comfortable the individual is with his or her level
of indecision), and (c) reasons (what reasons the individual
has for his or her indecision). They developed a scale—the
Vocational Decision Scale (Jones & Chenery, 1980)—to mea-
sure these three dimensions. The Vocational Decision Scale
was later revised and renamed the Career Decision Profile
(CDP; Jones, 1989a). One way the CDP can be used is to
classify individuals into four groups: (a) decided-comfortable,
(b) decided-uncomfortable, (c) undecided-comfortable, and
(d) undecided-uncomfortable. This classification recognizes
that some individuals may be decided in their career choice,
yet feel uncomfortable with their decision. The CDP can also
be used to differentiate individuals according to four reasons
they may have for being undecided: (a) lack of self-clarity
(indecision due to an individual's inability to understand his
or her strengths, weaknesses, interests, and personality), (b)
lack of knowledge about occupations (indecision due to a lack
of information concerning occupations and educational pro-
grams), (c) indecisiveness (undecidedness due to a general
inability to make decisions), and (d) career choice importance
(the extent to which respondents feel that choosing and work-
ing in an occupation is an important or unimportant part of
their life goals). Overall, the vocational decision status model
seems promising as a means of specifying subtypes. Yet, there
is little clear empirical research that has assessed the model
proposed by Jones and Chenery (1980).
Four studies have used cluster-analytic procedures to clas-
sify individuals according to their career decision status. Clus-
ter analysis is a statistical procedure that can be used to
identify homogeneous groups of individuals on the basis of
their scores on a set of related variables. Lucas and Epperson
(1990) used measures of self-esteem, locus of control, career
salience, state and trait anxiety, and role salience (relation-
 72 CONNIE R. WANBERG AND PAUL M. MUCHINSKY
ships, work, and leisure) to investigate possible subtypes of
undecided students with cluster analysis. Similarly, Larson,
Heppner, Ham, and Dugan (1988) classified undecided stu-
dents into clusters using measures of indecision (Career De-
cision Scale [CDS]; Osipow, Carney, Winer, Yanico, & Kos-
chier, 1976), interests, problem-solving self-appraisal, and
career planning difficulty. Both the Lucas and Epperson and
Larson et al. studies included only career undecided students
in their cluster analyses. Although this seems logical given the
goal of finding a typology of undecided students, excluding
decided students fails to recognize the possible existence of a
decided-uncomfortable group (as suggested by the vocational
decision status model) that may also need career counseling.
The two other studies using cluster analysis to classify
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
individuals according to their career decision status focused
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
on both career decided and undecided students. Fuqua, Blum,
and Hartman (1988) classified high school students into one
of four types on the basis of their responses to the State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene,
Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983), the Identity Scale (Holland, Gottfred-
son, & Nafziger, 1975), the Internal-External Locus of Con-
trol Scale (Rotter, 1966), and the CDS (Osipow, Carney,
Winer, Yanico, & Koschier, 1976). One cluster of students
was characterized as being career decided and having a low
level of anxiety. The second cluster consisted of career unde-
cided individuals with moderate levels of anxiety and an
internal locus of control. The third and fourth clusters exhib-
ited high levels of indecision and an external locus of control.
These two clusters differed in their respective levels of anxiety,
with the third cluster being moderate and the fourth cluster
being high. Fuqua et al. commented that a greater range of
variables in the cluster analysis would have permitted a more
detailed understanding of how the groups differed. Savickas
and Jarjoura (1991) used cluster analysis to identify underly-
ing subgroups of students on the basis of their responses to
CDS items. Again, although these results were supportive of
multiple types of undecided students, it is suggested that using
a greater range of variables would further explicate the bound-
aries of this construct.
The purpose of this study was to further investigate a
possible typology of career decision status by using cluster-
analytic procedures. Our research expands the range of vari-
ables used in past studies to allow additional description and
delineation of how career subtypes might differ. Careful con-
sideration was put into choosing a constellation of variables
that would be useful in characterizing individuals within a
typology of career decision status. Three instruments were
devoted to the assessment of relevant aspects of career inde-
cision, and four instruments were chosen to measure relevant
aspects of personality. The personality constructs we chose to
use included anxiety, locus of control, and self-esteem; our
choice was based on the constructs' empirical relation to the
indecision construct (cf. Fuqua et al., 1988; Fuqua, Seaworth,
& Newman, 1987; Maier & Herman, 1974). A measure of
self-consciousness (assessing the tendency of an individual to
direct self-attention inward versus outward) was also included
as an exploratory variable in this study, to investigate the
possible differences among subtypes in their tendency to self-
reflect. However, as an exploratory variable, the self-con-
sciousness measure was used as an external descriptor of the
cluster solution, not as a variable within the cluster analysis.
Our study includes both career decided and career unde-
cided individuals. Including the scores of both decided and
undecided individuals allows us to compare ourfindingswith
the Jones and Chenery (1980) vocational decision status
model, which also includes both career decided and career
undecided groups.
Method
Sample
The subjects were 390 undergraduate students enrolled in intro-
ductory psychology courses at a large midwestern university (197
were women, 188 were men, and 5 did not indicate their gender).
The median age was 18 years, with a range from 16 to 55 years. Three
hundred fifty-eight students had formally declared a major, whereas
32 had not. Subjects received extra credit toward their course grade
for participating in the study.
Indecision Measures
Because vocational indecision was the primary construct of interest
in this study, three instruments were devoted to its assessment.
Career Decision Profile. The CDP (Jones, 1989b) was developed
as a multidimensional measure of career indecision. The measure has
six subscales. The Decidedness scale (2 items) measures the extent to
which a person has decided on an occupational choice. The Comfort
scale (2 items) measures the extent to which a person feels comfortable
with his or her career decision status. The remaining four scales are
concerned with reasons for indecision. These scales include Self-
Clarity (3 items), Knowledge About Occupations (3 items). Decisive-
ness (3 items), and Career Importance (3 items). All items in this
measure are answered on an 8-point Likert scale ranging from strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (8). According to Jones (1989a), the
alpha coefficients for these scales range from .68 to .85. Evidence
supporting the convergent and discriminant validity of the CDP scales
was also shown by Jones (1989a).
Career Decision Scale. The CDS (Osipow, Carney, Winer, Yan-
ico, & Koschier, 1976) consists of 19 items. Items 1 and 2 comprise
the Certainty scale, which provides a measure of the respondent's
certainty surrounding career choice and choice of an academic major.
Items 3 through 18 constitute the Indecision scale and are designed
to assess aspects of career indecision. The 19th item permits individ-
uals to elaborate on their career aspirations and was not used in this
study. Responses were made on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from
not at all like me (1) to exactly like me (4). Osipow, Carney, and
Barak (1976) analyzed the reliability of the CDS with two samples of
college students over a 14-day period. They found test-retest corre-
lations for the sum of Items 3 through 18 of .90 and .82. Evidence
for the validity of the CDS has been supported by studies of the
relationship of CDS scores with age, career counseling interventions,
and career choice change (e.g., Osipow, Carney, & Barak, 1976).
My Vocational Situation (MVS). The MVS (Holland, Daiger, &
Power, 1980) consists of 20 items designed to measure vocational
indecision. The measure includes three subscales. The first 18 items
comprise the Identity scale and are answered as true or false. The
score on the Identity scale is the total number of false responses, with
higher scores indicating a clearer picture of one's goals, interests,
personality, and talents. Validity studies have shown that scores on
this scale increase with age, training, and degree of specialization
 CAREER DECISION STATUS
(Holland etal., 1980). The 19th item is the Occupational Information
scale; it assesses whether or not individuals need any of four kinds of
career information (e.g., how to find a job). The 20th item is the
Barriers scale, which assesses whether or not any of four kinds of
factors (e.g., money) have acted as a barrier to career choice. Accord-
ing to Holland et al. (1980), the Occupational Information and
Barriers scales resemble checklists more than scales. Holland et al.
(1980) reported internal consistency reliabilities for the MVS of .87
(Identity), .79 (Occupational Information), and .45 (Barriers). Be-
cause of its low reported reliability, the Barriers scale was not used in
this study.
Personality Measures
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Four instruments were chosen to measure aspects of personality.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Measures of anxiety, locus of control, and self-esteem were chosen
on the basis of their empirical relation to career indecision. A measure
of self-consciousness was included to explore the relationship between
career indecision and the tendency to self-reflect.
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. The STAI (Spielberger et al.,
1983) consists of both a State Anxiety scale and a Trait Anxiety scale.
The State Anxiety scale asks individuals to indicate how they feel
"right now . . . at this moment," whereas the Trait Anxiety scale asks
individuals to indicate how they "generally feel." Each scale consists
of 20 items. Subjects indicated the extent of their agreement with
each of the items using four response alternatives: almost never,
sometimes, often, and almost always. Spielberger et al. reported
Kuder-Richardson (K-R 20) coefficients for the STAI in three sam-
ples. For the State Anxiety scale, K-R 20 coefficients ranged from .86
to .95. For the Trait Anxiety scale, coefficients ranged from .89 to
.91. Evidence of the concurrent, divergent, and construct validity of
the STAI scales is summarized in the STAI manual (Spielberger et
al., 1983).
Internal, Powerful Others and Chance Scales (IPC). The IPC
(Levenson, 1974) contains three measures of locus of control: the
extent to which an individual feels personal control over his or her
life (Internal scale), the extent to which an individual feels that
powerful others are in control (Powerful Others scale), and the extent
to which an individual feels that life events are due to luck or chance
(Chance scale). Each scale consists of eight items to be rated on a
Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
Levenson reported K-R 20 reliabilities of .64 (Internal scale), .77
(Powerful Others scale), and .78 (Chance scale). The Internal scale
correlates negatively with Rotter's Internal-External Locus of Control
Scale (—.41), whereas the Powerful Others and Chance scales produce
values of .25 and .56, respectively. Further validity research has been
conducted with the IPC scales to assess relationships with achieve-
ment, interpersonal perception, and behavior (e.g., Levenson, 1981).
Janis Field Feelings of Inadequacy Scale (JF). The revised ver-
sion of the JF (Janis & Field, 1959; revised by Eagly, 1967) was used
in this study to measure self-esteem. Subjects indicate their agreement
with each of the 20 items on this scale usingfiveresponse alternatives:
very often, fairly often, sometimes, once in a great while, and practi-
cally never. Responses to the items are summed to produce a single
scale score. Eagly (1967) reported split-half reliabilities of .72 and .88.
O'Brien (1985) found a correlation of .82 between the Eagly revision
of the JF and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965).
Self-Consciousness Scale (SCS). The SCS (Fenigstein, Scheier, &
Buss, 1975) assesses an individual's tendency to direct self-attention
inward or outward. There are three subscales: Private Self-Conscious-
ness (10 items; e.g., "I'm always trying to figure myself out"), Public
Self-Consciousness (7 items; e.g., "I'm concerned about what other
people think of me"), and Social Anxiety (6 items; e.g., "I have
trouble working when someone is watching me"). Respondents rate
73
each item on a scale of extremely uncharacteristic (1) to extremely
characteristic (5). Test-retest reliability was computed by Fenigstein
et al., with a 2-week period between administrations. The reliability
coefficients were .79 for Private Self-Consciousness, .84 for Public
Self-Consciousness, and .73 for Social Anxiety. Private self-conscious-
ness correlates with thoughtfulness (.48); individuals high in public
self-consciousness have been shown to demonstrate high self-blame
and conformity; and social anxiety correlates negatively with socia-
bility. This and other validity information for the SCS is summarized
in Buss (1980).
Procedure
Subjects completed the seven questionnaires in groups of approx-
imately 50. After all subjects had arrived in the testing room, modified
consent forms were distributed. The experimenter read the consent
form aloud and then distributed the seven questionnaires. Subjects
were asked to provide the following demographic information on
their answer sheets before completing the questionnaires: (a) educa-
tional major if one had been declared, (b) gender, (c) age, and (d)
year in college. Most subjects completed the questionnaires in ap-
proximately 50 min.
The seven questionnaires were assembled into four different com-
binations to balance possible order effects. The seven questionnaires
consist of three measures of vocational indecision and four measures
of personality. The four combinations served to stagger the indecision
measures so that no two were ever presented in sequence. The four
orders of presentation were as follows (vocational indecision measures
are italicized): (a) SCS, CDS, JF, CDP, STAI, MVS, IPC; (b) JF,
CDS, STAI, CDP, IPC, MVS, SCS; (c) STAI, CDS, IPC, CDP, SCS,
MVS, JF; and (d) IPC, CDS, SCS, CDP, JF, MVS, STAI.
Statistical Analyses
Intercorrelations among the scale scores were computed, and a
one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the mean
scale scores to assess any order effects associated with the four
presentations of questionnaires.
Cluster analysis was used as a means to classify and differentiate
the subjects in this study. Although there are several different methods
of cluster analysis, Borgen and Weiss (1971) and Borgen and Barnett
(1987) recommended the Ward (1963) method because of the high
interpretability of the results and its frequency of use in the psycho-
logical literature. Participants in this study were classified into clusters
on the basis of their standardized scores on 12 of the 19 subscales.
Six of the 10 indecision subscales were included in the cluster analysis:
Decidedness (CDP), Self-Clarity (CDP), Knowledge About Occupa-
tions (CDP), Decisiveness (CDP), Career Importance (CDP), and
Identity (MVS). The remaining four indecision subscales (Comfort
[CDP], Certainty [CDS], Indecision [CDS], and Occupational Infor-
mation [MVS]) were assigned as external descriptors of the cluster
solution. The CDS subscales were chosen to be left out of the cluster
analysis because it was believed to be useful to have a general measure
of undecidedness to use as an outside descriptor of the cluster analysis.
The Comfort scale (CDP) was chosen to be left out of the cluster
solution to allow an outside assessment of the degree of occupational
comfort associated with each of the identified clusters. The Occupa-
tional Information scale (MVS) was left out of the cluster analysis
because of its status as a borderline scale or checklist (Holland et al.,
1980).
Six of the nine personality subscales were used in the cluster
analysis, including the State Anxiety and Trait Anxiety scales (STAI),
the IPC scales, and the Self-Esteem scale (JF). The constructs mea-
sured by these scales (anxiety, locus of control, and self-esteem) have
 74 CONNIE R. WANBERG AND PAUL M. MUCHINSKY
been previously associated with career indecision, as discussed earlier.
The three SCS subscales (Private Self-Consciousness, Public Self-
Consciousness, and Social Anxiety) were included as exploratory
variables and thus were only used as external descriptors of the cluster
solution.
The Ward method of cluster analysis forms clusters so that they
have minimum within-group variation and maximum between-
groups variation. Each of the 390 subjects is initially regarded as a
cluster, and the number of clusters is systematically reduced in an
iterative and hierarchical manner. Semipartial R2 values were inter-
preted as error terms in making a decision about the number of
resultant clusters (Statistical Analysis System, 1985). In a plot of the
error terms by each potential cluster solution, the first point at which
the error term climbs sharply upward can be defined as the optimal
number of clusters.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
A one-way ANOVA was performed for each of the 12 variables
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
used within the cluster analysis across the identified clusters. This
procedure was used to help describe the cluster solution. Likewise,
this procedure was performed to test differences between the identified
clusters on the subscales not included in the cluster analysis. The
effect sizes (as measured by a>2) of variables used within the cluster
analysis and those not included were also calculated (Kirk, 1982).
The stability of the resultant cluster solution was tested by ran-
domly dividing the total sample into two subsamples (n — 204 and n
= 186). The cluster-analytic procedure was repeated for each
subgroup. The clusters resulting from these analyses were compared
with each other and with the cluster solution based on the entire
sample. Finally, a chi-square analysis was conducted on the group
membership of those students who had declared an academic major
(n = 358) versus those who had not (n = 32). This analysis served to
help establish the validity of the resulting cluster solution.
Results
Table 1 shows the intercorrelations among the 19 variables
in this study. Variables 1 through 10 represent the indecision
scales. Correlations among these scales ranged from . 16 (De-
cisiveness and Importance) to —.78 (Indecision and Identity).
The correlations provide evidence that the indecision scales
converge in their assessments, although some scales were more
centrally related to indecision than others. Correlations be-
tween the indecision scales and the personality scales (Vari-
ables 11 through 19) reveal many statistically significant re-
lationships. However, two of the self-consciousness scales
(Private Self-Consciousness and Public Self-Consciousness)
had the lowest relationships (typically nonsignificant) with
the indecision variables.
The four different orders of questionnaire presentation were
analyzed by performing a one-way ANOVA on the 19 mean
scale scores. One variable (State Anxiety) showed a statistically
significant (p < .01) order effect. Subjects who completed the
STAI fifth in the sequence of questionnaires (Order 1, M -
34) reported less state anxiety than subjects who completed
the STAI first (Order 2, M = 38) or third (Order 3, M = 38)
in the sequence. These results suggest that some individuals
were anxious about the study at the start but that, as they
completed the questionnaires, their anxiety abated. We felt
that this one significant order effect did not confound the
interpretation of the other scales, because our counterbal-
anced design served to control for the error contributed by
order. However, it is of interest that this one order effect
occurred, because it suggests that researchers cannot auto-
matically assume that the State Anxiety scale, presented at
various points in a packet of questionnaires, will produce
equivalent results. This is not surprising given the construct
the scale measures.
Cluster Analysis
The 12 subscale scores marked for use in the cluster analysis
were standardized, and Ward's method was used to perform
the clustering process. To determine the optimal number of
clusters, changes in the R2 error term were examined. A
marked increase in the error term was first evident at the
merge from four clusters to three clusters, meaning a great
deal of information had been lost by collapsing four clusters
into three (see Figure 1). Because there were no other abrupt
increases in the error term, a four-cluster solution was inter-
preted.
Table 2 reports the raw subscale means and standard devia-
tions for each of the four clusters. Effect sizes (or), also shown
in Table 2, reveal that the variables of Identity, Trait Anxiety,
Self-Esteem, and Knowledge About Occupations were most
influential in the clustering process. To aid interpretation,
Figure 2 displays pictorially the standardized subscale means
for the four clusters, and Table 3 provides a comparison
among the clusters with the standardized means being classi-
fied into high (.3 or greater), moderate (-.3 to .3), and low
(—.3 or lower) categories.
Subjects in Cluster 1 (n = 77; 36 men and 40 women;
19.7% of the total sample) scored high, relative to members
of the other clusters, on Decidedness, Self-Clarity, Knowledge
About Occupations, Decisiveness, Identity, Internal Control,
and Self-Esteem. The high scores on the Decidedness, Self-
Clarity, Knowledge, and Identity scales indicate that these
individuals have clear pictures of their interests and talents,
they seem to be decided about what career they will follow,
and they believe they are well informed about the occupations
and educational programs. The high scores on the Decisive-
ness, Internal, and Self-Esteem scales indicate that these in-
dividuals believe they are able to make decisions without
difficulty, they feel they have personal control over their lives,
and they generally feel good about themselves.
The members of Cluster 1 had low scores on State Anxiety
and Trait Anxiety, showing that they did not feel tension or
apprehension at the time of the study and that they do not
tend to be nervous and worrisome in other situations. This
group also scored low on Powerful Others and Chance control,
meaning that there is not a feeling among these individuals
that their lives are controlled by people in powerful positions
or by chance factors. Finally, the individuals in this cluster
had intermediate scores on the Career Importance scale,
indicating that they feel their future careers and work are at
least somewhat important to them at this time. This group
was named "confident decided individuals."
Members of Cluster 2 (« = 154; 80 men and 72 women;
39.5% of the total sample) also scored high on Decidedness
and Career Importance and relatively high on Identity. Yet,
this cluster shows higher levels of state anxiety and trait
anxiety and lower levels of self-clarity, decisiveness, and self-
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

S Si
CAREER DECISION STATUS

|S35S-|Sj5?e
75
 76 CONNIE R. WANBERG AND PAUL M. MUCHINSKY

0.25 that choosing an occupation is not as important to this group

as it may be for the others. Cluster 3 members had moderate
scores on personality variables State Anxiety and Trait Anxi-
ety; Internal, Powerful Others, and Chance control; and Self-
Esteem. This group was named "indifferent undecided indi-
viduals."
Like Cluster 3, members of Cluster 4 (n = 60; 25 men and
35 women; 15.4% of the total sample) were career undecided,
as witnessed by their low mean scores on the Identity and
Self-Clarity subscales and their moderate score on the Decid-
edness scale. This group reported a low level of knowledge
about occupational and educational programs (Knowledge
About Occupations scale), and a moderate feeling that their
0.00 career choice is an important issue at this time (Career Im-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 portance scale). In comparison with the other groups, these

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Number of Clusters individuals are characterized by very high scores on State

Figure 1. Semipartial R2 error values by number of clusters.
esteem, than does Cluster 1. This group had intermediate
scores on the Knowledge About Occupations, Internal, Pow-
erful Others, and Chance scales, showing that members of
this group feel that they have at least a moderate amount of
career information and a moderate belief in being controlled
by internal, powerful others, and chance factors. This group
was named "concerned decided individuals."
Members of Cluster 3 (n = 99; 47 men and 50 women;
25.4% of the total sample) had low scores on the Decidedness,
Self-Clarity, Decisiveness, and Identity scales. The low scores
on these scales indicate that individuals in this cluster are
unclear about their vocational interests and goals and that
they have difficulty making decisions. This group also scored
low on the Knowledge About Occupations subscale, indicat-
ing that these students feel they lack information about oc-
cupational and educational programs. Cluster 3 scored lowest
of the four groups on the Career Importance scale, suggesting
Anxiety and Trait Anxiety and very low scores on Self-
Esteem. This group scored high on the Powerful Others and
Chance scales and low on the Internal scale, meaning that
there is a feeling among these individuals that their lives are
controlled by people in powerful positions or by chance
factors. This group was named "anxious undecided individ-
uals."
Differentiation of Clusters: External Variables
Table 4 shows the raw mean scores of the seven variables
(Comfort, Certainty, Indecision, Occupational Information,
Public Self-Consciousness, Private Self-Consciousness, and
Social Anxiety) that served as the external descriptors of the
four clusters. The external descriptor scales Certainty, Inde-
cision, and Occupational Information can be used to reiterate
the cluster analysis results. For example, high Certainty and
low Indecision scores support the portrayal of Clusters 1 and
2 as career decided; low Certainty and high Indecision scores
support the portrayal of Clusters 3 and 4 as career undecided.

Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Analysis of Variance Results for the Variables Used Within the Cluster Analysis
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4
(n = 77) (« = 154) (« = 99) (n = 60)
Subscale Range M SD M SD M SD M SD F" or
Decidedness (CDP) 2-16 14.19, 2.91 14.45, 1.79 10.04b 3.48 12.50c 3.20 57.97 .30
Self-Clarity (CDP) 3-24 18.26a 4.92 13.99b 5.14 8.90c 4.47 7.45C 4.10 83.17 .39
Knowledge (CDP) 3-24 19.70a 3.90 15.85b 4.34 10.07, 3.46 11.17, 4.45 100.14 .43
Decisiveness (CDP) 3-24 20.57 a 4.34 17.96b 4.60 14.17C 5.18 11.87d 5.37 48.94 .27
Importance (CDP) 3-24 21.58, 3.50 21.90 a 2.39 18.17b 4.23 19.93C 3.26 29.03 .18
Identity (MVS) 0-18 15.41, 2.79 12.75b 3.19 7.01 c 3.52 6.80c 3.47 145.61 .53
State Anxiety 20-80 28.34a 6.76 35.90, 10.77 37.54 b 10.48 48.42C 10.50 46.04 .26
Trait Anxiety 20-80 30.94a 5.82 38.83 b 8.12 40.20 b 7.65 54.43C 6.99 115.08 .47
Internal 8-40 33.12a 4.51 31.56 b 3.64 3O.13c 3.96 28.90 c 3.80 15.72 .10
Powerful Others 8-40 15.28a 3.72 20.32 b 4.29 20.39 b 3.84 25.87,. 4.25 76.36 .37
Chance 8-40 14.96a 3.79 19.23b 4.17 2O.3Ob 4.09 25.33, 4.13 74.47 .36
Self-Esteem 20-100 81.79, 7.15 71.89 b 8.45 69.00 b 8.48 56.03, 9.36 108.97 .45
Now. Across individual rows, means with different subscripts differ significantly with the Scheffe test (p < .05). Scales were scored such that
higher values indicate more of the construct measured. Indecision subscales are followed by scale labels for easier identification (CDP = Career
Decision Profile; MVS = My Vocational Situation). State Anxiety and Trait Anxiety subscales are from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory;
Internal, Powerful Others, and Chance subscales are from the Internal, Powerful Others and Chance Scales; and the Self-Esteem scale is from
the Janis Field Feelings of Inadequacy Scale, revised version.
" All F ratios are significant at p < .001.
 CAREER DECISION STATUS
• Cluster 1 •• — • Cluster 3
) Cluster 2 o - - -o Cluster 4
1.50
c
CO
CO
c decided individuals), Cluster 3 (indifferent undecided individ-
CO
CO
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
[1
a.
n a n a> —
o o o _ O
E O
nee
ess
<D
"8
01 (75
-o
o ples, with the exception of Cluster 2 in relation to the variable
Scales Included in the Cluster Analysis
Figure 2. Standardized means of Cluster 1, Cluster 2, Cluster 3, and
Cluster 4. (CDP = Career Decision Profile; MVS = My Vocational
Situation. State Anxiety and Trait Anxiety subscales are from the
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory; Internal, Powerful Others, and Chance
subscales are from the Internal, Powerful Others and Chance Scales;
and the Self-Esteem scale is from the Janis Field Feelings of Inade-
quacy Scale, revised version.)
Also, according to the Occupational Information scale, mem-
bers of Cluster 1 feel they have a high amount of occupational
information; Clusters 2 and 3, moderate levels; Cluster 4, low
levels. The cluster variables showed the same pattern of
results.
The external variables Comfort, Public Self-Consciousness,
Private Self-Consciousness, and Social Anxiety were used to
provide additional information about the clusters. High Com-
fort scale scores for Cluster 1 members indicate that these
individuals are comfortable with their place in the vocational
choice process, but Cluster 2 members showed only moderate
levels of comfort. Members of Clusters 3 and 4 seemed
uncomfortable with their vocational decision status; their
mean comfort scores were significantly lower than those of
Clusters 1 and 2. Private Self-Consciousness scores show that
there are no significant differences among the four groups in
their tendency to self-reflect. Low Public Self-Consciousness
and Social Anxiety scores for Cluster 1 show that these
individuals tend not to be shy or anxious in social situations.
Clusters 2 and 3 scored in the moderate range on these two
variables, whereas Cluster 4 showed higher levels of Public
Self-Consciousness and Social Anxiety.
Stability and Validity of Cluster Solution
The stability of the four-cluster solution was addressed by
randomly dividing the total sample into two subsamples and
77
repeating the cluster analysis on each subsample separately.
Subsample 1 contained 204 individuals, whereas Subsample
2 contained 186 individuals. Although the results of these
cluster analyses are not presented in tabular form, to conserve
space, the results are summarized as follows.
A four-cluster solution clearly emerged in Subsample 2,
whereas both three-cluster and four-cluster solutions were
interpretable in Subsample 1. Because a four-cluster solution
in Subsample 1 was defensible, and to be consistent with the
other cluster solution, the results for both subsamples were
interpreted in a four-cluster solution. Cluster 1 (confident
uals), and Cluster 4 (anxious undecided individuals) from the
total sample all clearly replicated in both subsamples. How-
ever, Cluster 2 (concerned decided individuals) from the total
sample did not replicate as clearly in the subsamples. One
variable, Decisiveness, served to cloud the results. The indi-
viduals in Subsample 2 had a moderate level of decisiveness,
To
whereas the individuals in Subsample 1 exhibited a lower
UJ
level of decisiveness. Overall, we conclude that the cluster
results from the total sample did replicate well in the subsam-
Decisiveness.
A chi-square analysis was constructed on the group mem-
bership of those students who had declared an academic major
(n = 358) versus those who had not (n = 32). This analysis
served to help establish the validity of the total sample cluster
solution. Of the 32 individuals who had not declared an
academic major, 26 (81%) were members of one of the two
undecided groups. Of the 358 individuals who had declared
an academic major, 224 (63%) were members of one of the
two decided groups, x2(3, N = 390) = 23.07, p < .001.
Discussion
Jones and Chenery (1980) developed the vocational deci-
sion status model to explain the concept of career indecision.
Jones (1989a) revised the Vocational Decision Scale, on which
the model was based, to form the CDP. The model suggests
that it may be useful to classify individuals into four groups
of vocational decision status: (a) decided-comfortable, (b)
decided-uncomfortable, (c) undecided-comfortable, and (d)
undecided-uncomfortable. It is interesting that both our study
and Jones's study reported finding four types of individuals,
two that seem to be career decided and two that seem to be
career undecided. Although our cluster-analytic study was not
intended to be an explicit test of the Jones and Chenery
model, it seems their model provides a basis for juxtaposing
our findings. In comparing our results with their proposed
typology, we found similarities. Yet, some major empirical
and conceptual distinctions also emerged.
Both studies identified the existence of a group of individ-
uals who have clear vocational interests and who appear
content with their decision. Jones and Chenery (1980) labeled
this group decided-comfortable individuals, whereas we la-
beled this group confident decided individuals (Cluster 1).
These individuals are characterized by a strong sense of career
decidedness, self-clarity, vocational identity, and self-esteem.
Both studies also identified the existence of a group of indi-
 78 CONNIE R. WANBERG AND PAUL M. MUCHINSKY

Table 3
Description of Clusters: High, Medium, and Low Mean Standard Scale Scores
High Intermediate Low
Cluster standard scores standard scores standard scores
(.3 and higher) (.3 to -.3) (-.3 and lower)
Cluster 1 Decidedness (CDP) Importance (CDP) State Anxiety
Self-Clarity (CDP) Trait Anxiety
Knowledge (CDP) Powerful Others
Decisiveness (CDP) Chance
Identity (MVS)
Internal
Self-Esteem

Cluster 2 Decidedness (CDP) Self-Clarity (CDP)

Importance (CDP) Knowledge (CDP)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Identity (CDP) Decisiveness (CDP)

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

State Anxiety
Trait Anxiety
Internal
Powerful Others
Chance
Self-Esteem

Cluster 3 State Anxiety Decidedness (CDP)

Trait Anxiety Self-Clarity (CDP)
Internal Knowledge (CDP)
Powerful Others Decisiveness (CDP)
Chance Importance (CDP)
Self-Esteem Identity (CDP)

Cluster 4 State Anxiety Decidedness (CDP) Self-Clarity (CDP)

Trait Anxiety Importance (CDP) Knowledge (CDP)
Powerful Others Decisiveness (CDP)
Chance Identity (MVS)
Internal
Self-Esteem
Note. Indecision subscales are followed by scale labels (CDP = Career Decision Profile; MVS = My
Vocational Situation). State Anxiety and Trait Anxiety subscales are from the State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory; Internal, Powerful Others, and Chance subscales are from the Internal, Powerful Others and
Chance Scales; and the Self-Esteem scale is from the Janis Field Feelings of Inadequacy, revised version.

viduals who have unclear vocational interests and are not
content with their state of indecision. Jones and Chenery
labeled the group undecided-uncomfortable individuals,
whereas we labeled this group anxious undecided individuals
(Cluster 4). These individuals are characterized by low levels
of vocational identity, self-clarity, and self-esteem and high
levels of state and trait anxiety.
However, it is with regard to the final two groups that the
two studies produced the greatest conceptual differences.
Jones (1989a) described a group he labeled as decided-un-

Table 4
Summary of Significant Differences Between Clusters on External Descriptor Scales
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4
(« = 77) (n= 154) (n = 99) (« = 60)
Subscale Range M M M M F w2
Comfort (CDP) 2-16 13.79a 11.92b 7.90c 9.31c 64.03* .33
Certainty (CDS) 2-8 6.95a 6.60. 4.8 l b 5.62c 44.27* .25
Indecision (CDS) 16-64 23.69a 27.18 b 38.34c 35.90c 85.67* .39
Occupational Information (MVS) 0-4 2.78a 1.84b 0.91c 0.72c 44.35* .25
Public Self-Consciousness 7-35 24.65 a 26.38 ab 26.45 ab 27.83b 4.20* .02
Private Self-Consciousness 10-50 33.04a 33.51 a 33.38a 35.20a 2.15 .01
Social Anxiety 6-30 14.74a 17.45b 18.45b 21.42t. 25.69* .16
Note. Across individual rows, means with different subscripts differ significantly with the Scheffe test
(p < .05). Scales were scored such that higher values indicate more of the construct measured. Indecision
subscales are followed by scale labels for easier identification (CDP = Career Decision Profile; CDS =
Career Decision Scale; MVS = My Vocational Situation). Public Self-Consciousness, Private Self-
Consciousness, and Social Anxiety subscales are from the Self-Consciousness Scale. For all F statistics,
df= 3, 386.
 CAREER DECISION STATUS
comfortable. We described a group we labeled concerned
decided individuals (Cluster 2). Both studies found that these
individuals had decided on a career, but we disagree as to the
appropriate descriptor for the affective dimension. In our
study, these individuals indicate self-doubt about the correct-
ness of their vocational choice. Yet, we did not identify these
individuals as uncomfortable with their vocational decision
status, but rather as concerned. Although they show higher
levels of anxiety and lower levels of self-esteem than the
individuals in Cluster 1 (the confident decided individuals),
their levels of anxiety and self-esteem are not as pronounced
as those of the members of Cluster 4 (the anxious undecided
group). These concerned decided individuals also scored sig-
nificantly higher (more comfortable) than the two undecided
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
groups on the CDP Comfort scale (see Table 4).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
The group with the fewest members identified by Jones
(1989a) was labeled undecided-comfortable. In our study, we
labeled members of Cluster 3 indifferent undecided. Both
studies found that these individuals had yet to settle on a clear
vocational path, but again we differ on the descriptor for the
affective dimension. We did not find these individuals to be
comfortable in their indecision, but rather they seemed not
to care or mind that they had yet to settle on a career choice.
Although they had low scores on Identity, Decidedness, and
Decisiveness, they exhibited moderate scores on Trait Anxi-
ety, State Anxiety, and Self-Esteem. They are less anxious
than the members of Cluster 4 (anxious undecided) and more
anxious than the members of Cluster 1 (confident decided).
What differentiates the members of Cluster 2 (concerned
decided) and Cluster 3 (indifferent undecided) is not only
their scores on the vocational decision scales but also the
scores on Career Importance and Knowledge About Occu-
pations (Tables 2 and 4). Indifferent undecided individuals
lack information about occupational and educational pro-
grams, yet they feel their career choice is less of an important
issue to them.
Although it may be tempting to attribute the differences
between the Jones and Chenery (1980) model and the present
study to semantics, we think that this is not the case. We
agree that confident and comfortable are equivalent in concep-
tual meaning, as are anxious and uncomfortable. Thus, Clus-
ters 1 and 4 in our study seem to show strong support for
Jones and Chenery's decided-comfortable and undecided-
uncomfortable groups. However, we do not believe that in-
dividuals who are concerned are necessarily uncomfortable,
nor are indifferent individuals necessarily comfortable. We
believe these latter terms are not synonymous but reflect
differences in the substantive significance of the meaning of
our identified clusters. Thus, we do not believe our cluster
results directly support Jones and Chenery's decided-uncom-
fortable and undecided-comfortable groups.
Jones (1989a) also suggested that it may be useful to differ-
entiate individuals according to four reasons they may have
for being undecided. His CDP measure, used in this study,
includes four scales concerned with reasons for indecision:
Self-Clarity, Knowledge About Occupations, Decisiveness,
and Career Importance. Jones reported some overlap among
the four reason scales in his study. He showed, for example,
that some individuals score low on more than one reason
scale. In our study, we found nonsignificant differences be-
79
tween our two groups of undecided individuals (indifferent
undecided and anxious undecided) on the Self-Clarity and
Knowledge About Occupations factors. The two reason fac-
tors that did differentiate our two undecided groups were
Career Importance and Decisiveness (Table 2). Overall, we
found the reason scales useful. Many career indecision scales
have not provided subscales to indicate possible reasons for
indecision. Although more research on these reason scales
would be beneficial, future work in this area should also focus
on how the career counselor might best use this information.
Conclusion and Comments
This study included both career decided and career unde-
cided subjects in a cluster-analytic investigation of career
decision status subtypes. Our study showed what may be
considered as clear support for Jones and Chenery's (1980)
decided-comfortable and undecided-uncomfortable groups.
Yet, we did not find a group clearly identified as decided-
uncomfortable or undecided-comfortable. Because little em-
pirical research has assessed the typology proposed by Jones
and Chenery, perhaps further studies should attempt to un-
derstand whether their model is a meaningful way to type
individuals according to career decision status.
Our study suggests that it is useful to include both unde-
cided and decided individuals in a typology. For example,
most individuals in our study were members of a group that
is rarely discussed in the vocational and counseling literature,
that is, concerned decided individuals. Although we disagree
that these individuals are uncomfortable with their career
decision status (e.g., Jones & Chenery), we do agree that they
may need career counseling. These individuals have settled
on a vocational path, yet exhibit self-doubt over their decision.
The emergence of this group may be attributable to social and
cohort effects placed on freshmen to select a major and be
committed to a vocational goal early in their college career.
It is our experience that many freshmen select majors partly
on the basis of their assessment of anticipated favorable job
market conditions on graduation. Rather than selecting vo-
cational paths on the basis of their own interests and abilities,
these students' choices are more heavily influenced by per-
ceived opportunities for employment. This sentiment is in
contrast to student cohorts of the past who seemed somewhat
oblivious to the economic realities of obtaining employment
in certain majors. Much of the popularity of business as a
major today is attributed to the perception of readily accessi-
ble employment on graduation. We believe that a significant
proportion of individuals in this concerned decided group
represent those who are questioning the soundness of their
decision to pursue a vocation for the types of reasons described
herein. We also believe that this group is, in part, responsible
for the high percentage of college students who switch aca-
demic majors. In short, we hypothesize that those who switch
majors are composed not only of undecided students but also
of students who become disenchanted with the major to which
they once were committed. We believe it could be particularly
advantageous to study this group of concerned decided indi-
viduals in a longitudinal design.
 80 CONNIE R. WANBERG AND PAUL M. MUCHINSKY
References
Borgen, F. H., & Barnett, D. C. (1987). Applying cluster analysis in Larson, L. M., Heppner, P. P., Ham, T., & Dugan, K. (1988).
counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psvchologv,
34, 456-468.
Borgen, F. H., & Weiss. D. J. (1971). Research methodology: Cluster
analysis and counseling research. Journal ofCounseling Psvchologv,
75,583-591.
Buss, A. H. (1980). Self consciousness and social anxiety. San Fran- Levenson, H. (1981). Differentiating among internality, powerful
cisco: Freeman.
Crites, J. O. (1969). Vocalional psychology: The study of vocational
behavior and development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Eagly, A. H. (1967). Involvement as a determinant of response to
favorable and unfavorable information. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology Monographs, 7(3, Whole No. 643).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Fenigstein. A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Con-
sulting and Clinical Psychology. 43, 522-527.
Fuqua, D. R., Blum, C. R., & Hartman. B. W. (1988). Empirical
support for the differential diagnosis of career indecision. Career
Development Quarterly, 36, 365-373.
Fuqua, D. R., Seaworth, T. B., & Newman, J. L. (1987). The
relationship of career indecision and anxiety: A multivariate ex-
amination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30, 175-186.
Goodstein, L. D. (1965). Behavior theoretical views of counseling. In
B. Stefflre (Ed.), Theories of counseling (pp. 140-192). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Hartman, B. W., Fuqua, D. R.. & Hartman, P. T. (1983). The
predictive potential of the career decision scale in identifying
chronic career indecision. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 32, 103-
108.
Holland, J. L., Daiger, D. C, & Power, P. G. (1980). My Vocational
Situation. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Holland, J. L., Gottfredson, D. C, & Nafziger, D. H. (1975). Testing
the validity of some theoretical signs of vocational decision-making
ability. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22, 411-422.
Holland, J. L., & Holland, J. E. (1977). Vocational indecision: More
evidence and speculation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 24,
404-414.
Janis, I. L., & Field, P. B. (1959). Sex differences and personality
factors related to persuasibility. In C. I. Hovland & I. L. Janis
(Eds.), Personality and persuasibility (pp. 55-68). New Haven, CT: Statistical Analysis System. (1985). SAS user's guide: Statistics. Cary.
Yale University Press.
Jones, L. K. (1989a). Measuring a three-dimensional construct of
career indecision among college students: A revision of the Voca-
tional Decision Scale—The Career Decision Profile. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 36, 477-486.
Jones, L. K. (1989b). The Career Decision Profile. Unpublished scale.
(Available from Lawrence K. Jones, North Carolina State Univer-
sity, Box 7801, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695)
Jones, L. K., & Chenery, M. F. (1980). Multiple subtypes among
vocationally undecided college students: A model and assessment
instrument. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 27, 469-477.
Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental design. Monterey, CA: Brooks/
Cole.
Investigating multiple subtypes of career indecision through cluster
analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 439-446.
Levenson, H. (1974). Activism and powerful others: Distinctions
within the concept of internal-external control. Journal of Person-
ality Assessment, 38, 377-383.
others, and chance. In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the
locus of control construct (Vol. 1, pp. 15-63). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Lucas, M. S., & Epperson, D. L. (1990). Types of vocational unde-
cidedness: A replication and refinement. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 37, 382-388.
Maier, D., & Herman, A. (1974). The relationship of vocational
decidedness and satisfaction with dogmatism and self-esteem. Jour-
nal of Vocational Behavior, 5, 95-102.
O'Brien, E. J. (1985). Global self-esteem scales: Unidimensional or
multi-dimensional? Psychological Reports, 57, 383-389.
Osipow, S. H., Carney, C. G., & Barak, A. (1976). A scale of
educational-vocational undecidedness: A typological approach.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9, 233-243.
Osipow, S. H., Carney, C. G., Winer, J. L., Yanico, B., & Koschier,
M. (1976). The Career Decision Scale (Rev. ed.). Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Prince-
ton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus
external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs,
80(\, Whole No. 609).
Salomone, P. R. (1982). Difficult cases in career counseling: II—The
indecisive client. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 60, 496-500.
Savickas, M. L., & Jarjoura, D. (1991). The Career Decision Scale as
a type indicator. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 85-90.
Slaney, R. B. (1988). The assessment of career decision making. In
W. B. Walsh & S. H. Osipow (Eds.) Career decision making (pp.
32-72). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R. E., Vagg, P. R., &
Jacobs, G. A. (1983). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory manual. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
NC: SAS Institute, Inc.
Tyler, L. E. (1961). The work of the counselor (2nd ed.). New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective
function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 236-
244.
Received December 17, 1990
Revision received June 10, 1991
Accepted June 17, 1991