Self-Concept Theory in

Career Development and I

Counseling

Nancy E. Betz

This article reviews the status of Super’s emphasis on career development as a

process of self-concept implementation. Beginning with an overview of research and
measurement issues, the article proceeds to a discussion of contemporary research
programs, including those on career self-efficacy and Gottfredson’s theory of cir-
cumscription and compromise, relating specific aspects of the self-concept to career
development. Recommendations for future theoretical developments, research, and
career counseling are made.

Among the many important theoretical contributions of Donald

Super was his emphasis on career development as a process of
self-concept implementation. Super originally suggested the impor-
tant role of the self-concept in career development in a 1949 speech
made in Fort Collins, Colorado, and later published in 1951. As
Super stated in his 1953 American Psychologist article:
The process of vocational development is essentially that of developing
and implementing a self-concept: it is a compromise process in which
the self-concept is a product of the interaction of inherited aptitudes,
neural and endocrine make-up, opportunity to play various roles, and
evaluations of the extent to which the results of role playing meet with
the approval of superiors and fellows.(p. 189)

Several years later, in an attempt to make self-concept theory

operational, Super ( 1963)defined the vocational self-concept as “The
constellation of self-attributes considered by the individual to be
vocationally relevant” (p. 20). Stating that the major dimensions of
the self-concept are traditional personality traits, Super focused his
discussion on the delineation of 13 metadimensions, such as self-
esteem, clarity, certainty, stability, and realism. Most recently,
Super (1990) suggested that self-concept theory might be better
called “personal construct theory” (after the term used by Kelly,

Nancy E. Betz is a professor i n the Department of Psychology, The

Ohio State University, 137 Townsend Hall, 1885 Neil Avenue Mall,
Columbus, OH 43210-1222.

32 THE CAREER DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY / SEPTEMBER 1994 / VOL. 43

1955) to show the individual’s dual focus on self and situation. He
also particularly emphasized the metadimensions, including self-es-
teem and self-efficacy, because they may influence how well the
process of self-concept implementation can occur.
Much of the research on self-concept theory, as cited by Super
(1963) and reviewed, for example, by Osipow (19831, has focused on
self-concept implementation in occupational preferences and
choices, as operationally defined by examining perceived and ideal
selves and their relationship to occupational role concepts. In early
research, the degree of similarity (congruence) of self- and occupational
role concepts was shown to be positively related to such criterion vari-
ables as intent to pursue the “congruent” field (Englander, 19601,job
satisfaction (Brophy, 19591, realism of vocational choice (Tageson,
19601, and interest versus disinterest in occupations (Blocher &
Schultz, 1961). Some later research (Burgoyne, 1979; Kidd, 1984;
Wheeler & Carnes, 1968) also operationally defined and examined the
relations among actual-self, ideal-self, and occupational concepts.
Osipow (1983) concluded his review of this body of research by
suggesting that it supports “the notion that self-concept plays an
important role in occupational preference” (p. 177).
Although, as Osipow i1983) suggested, research supports Super’s
emphasis on the self-concept in vocational behavior, there has been
less research and counseling use than one might expect of such a
potentially rich construct as this, especially in its more general role
in lifelong career development. In considering why this might be, I
suggest that the broad and nonspecific definitions of what is, and is
not, included in the self-concept have hampered both the heuristic
and practical usefulness of Super’s formulations. As discussed by
Gottfredson (1985), Osipow (19901, and Pryor (19851, among others,
the self-concept has not been well-conceptualized or well-measured
in vocational psychology.

OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS WITH THE

SELF-CONCEPT

The most serious problems with Super’s conceptualization of self-

concept arise because of its definitional breadth and nondefinitional
specificity. The definition and measurement of self-concept have
been both unwieldy and idiosyncratic, that is, subject to the inter-
pretation of individual researchers.
Super (1990) himself suggested the breadth of his concept when
he noted that Allport defined personality in terms of some 4,000
traits, and gave 50 meanings to the term personality. Super noted
as well that people have not one self-concept but constellations of
self-concepts i1990, p. 2231, or self-concept systems. When you add
to this Super’s laudable emphasis on the personal perception and
construction of the environment, thereby bringing in a consideration
of the social, economic, and political factors influencing the ways in

THE CAREER DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY / SEPTEMBER 1994 / VOL. 43 33

which self is translated into career, the potential number of variables
needing investigation becomes, for all practical purposes, infinite.
The variety of definitions across researchers also complicates re-
search. For example, Kidd (1984) used 61-item rating scales that
included interest, aptitude, and personality self-descriptors to assess
actual selfl ideal self, and occupational self Thus, the scales were
multidimensional and attempted to cover the major dimensions of
vocationally-relevant individual differences in 6 1items. In trying to
“do it all,’’ a difficult if not impossible task was created. Similar
difficulties characterized other multidimensional measurement ap-
proaches, including the Q-sort (as used, for example, by Englander,
19601, Adjective Checklist (e.g., Ziegler, 1970), semantic differential
(Burgoyne, 19791, and “descriptive checklists” (Wheeler & Carnes,
1968). Further difficulties resulted from the use of distance (or dif-
ference) scores (ideal vs. actual vs. occupational concepts), neces-
sitating the use of derived rather than actual scores, and profile
analysis. The farther the score to be interpreted is from the direct
measurement of some unitary attribute, the more complex, less
reliable, and less interpretable the findings (e.g., Nunnally, 1978).
Simply put, the inclusiveness and often derived nature of Super’s
self-concept notions have made measurement a complex task.
What has been needed and was in fact called for by Super (1990)
himself, is delineation of specific aspects of a global self-concept that
relate to career behavior. Such delineation would be more amenable
to measurement and to theoretical statements about the relationship
of a specific aspect of self-concept or its implementation to vocational
development throughout the life span. Put another way, Osipow
(1983) called for the formulation of additional conceptual links be-
tween the self-concept and vocational behavior. The next section will
provide mention of several areas of current research that specify con-
ceptual links between the self-concept and vocational development.

CURRENT RESEARCH EXPLICATING

SELF-CONCEPT THEORY

Self-Esteem

A first conceptual link, suggested by Osipow (1983) and Super (1963,

1990)is self-esteem. Based on pioneering research of Korman ( 19671,
there is reason to believe that individuals lacking in self-esteem are
less likely to make good matches between self and occupational role.
Although not all research has supported this mediating effect of
self-esteem (see Osipow, 19831, research on women’s career develop-
ment has shown self-esteem and other self-concept features to be
pivotal in the career development of women.
As comprehensively reviewed by Betz and Fitzgerald (1987) and
in Walsh and Osipow’s (1994) Career Counseling for Women, higher
levels of global self-esteem and more positive self-concepts are found
in career-oriented versus home-oriented women (e.g., Tinsley &

34 THE CAREER DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY / SEPTEMBER 1994 / VOL. 43

Faunce, 1980). In a reciprocal fashion, Stein, Newcombe, and Bentler
(1990) noted an increase in self-esteem over time among women
pursuing advanced education or full-time work but a decrement in
those choosing either part-time or no outside employment. Higher
levels of self-esteem have been particularly strongly related to
women’s pursuit of traditionally male-dominated occupations (e.g.,
Lemkau, 1983) and to their achievement motivation and career com-
mitment (see Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987, for an extensive review of
this literature).
These relationships have been found not only with global self-
esteem but with respect to more specific dimensions of academic
self-esteem (Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976), and performance
self-esteem (Stake, 1979). There is strong evidence that women who
“feel good about themselves” are more able to actualize other char-
acteristics (e.g., abilities, interests) in occupational choices. In terms
from Super’s theory, women with high self-esteem (one component
or metadimension of self-concept) are better able to successfully
implement other aspects of their self-concepts.
Career Self-Efficacy Theory
More specific than constructs such as global, academic, or perfor-
mance self-esteem are aspects of what is now called “career-related
self-efficacy expectations.” Hackett and Betz (1981) were the first to
apply Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy theory to career behavior because
they believed that it could explain the process by which traditional
gender role socialization influenced women’s (and men’s) self-
referent evaluations in relationship to career choices and behaviors.
Briefly, self-efficacy expectations are expectations or beliefs con-
cerning one’s ability to perform successfully a given behavior. Ef-
ficacy expectations are postulated to determine whether or not
behavior will be initiated, how much effort will be expended, and
how long behavior will be sustained in the face of obstacles and
aversive experiences. Because many behaviors or behavior domains
are important in educational and career development, efficacy ex-
pectations are postulated to influence choice, performance, and per-
sistence in career-related domains.
According to Bandura (19771, efficacy expectations develop and are
potentially modified via four sources of experiential information:

1. Performance accomplishments
2. Vicarious learning, or modeling
3. Verbal persuasion, or encouragement from other people to
engage in a specific behavior
4. Degree of emotional arousal with reference to a domain of
behavior, such that the higher the arousal (anxiety), the
less self-efficacious the individual will feel

Thus, to the extent that the individual’s background experiences in

a given behavioral area have been characterized by performance
accomplishments, vicarious learning, verbal persuasion and en-

THE CAREER DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY / SEPTEMBER 1994 I VOL. 43 35

couragement, and a lack of anxiety associations, the individual
would be postulated to develop high self-efficacy expectations with
respect to that domain.
Hackett and Betz (1981) postulated that low expectations of self-
efficacy with respect to many career areas, particularly those in
traditionally male-dominated career areas, were a major mediator
of gender differences in vocational choice and subsequent vocational
behavior. They reviewed evidence showing that the background ex-
periences of men and women in this society differ quite markedly
in terms of the sources of efficacy information they provide for sub-
sequent career options, with the socialization of men providing ef-
ficacy information for a broader variety of career options than does
the socialization of women.
Career self-efficacy theory has generated a considerable body of
research, much of it supportive of the postulated role of cognitions
of self-efficacy in such domains as mathematics (Hackett, 19851,
scientific-technical careers (Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1986), career
decision making (Taylor & Popma, 1990), and specific job tasks
(Rooney & Osipow, 1992). A recent meta-analysis of this body of
research supported the conclusion that stronger perceptions of self-
efficacy with respect to various career related behaviors are sig-
nificantly related to such outcome variables as range of career op-
tions considered, choice of or persistence in math and science majors
and careers, and performance (Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991).
Although more research is needed (see Brooks, 1990; Lent & Hack-
ett, 19871, self-efficacy theory provides one model application of
Super’s theory for several reasons (and see Borgen, 1991). First, it
postulates a process by which specific self-concepts (in this case
perceptions of self-efficacy with respect to career-related domains of
behavior) are related to (implemented in) career options, preferences,
and other behaviors. Second, self-efficacy theory nicely combines
Super’s emphases on both the self-concept and learning theory.
(Super [1990] has described his work as a “loosely unified set of
theories. . .held together by self-concept and learning theory” [p. 1991.)
Furthermore, unlike traditional trait-factor theory, career self-
efficacy theory is based on subjective perceptions of, rather than
objectively measured, characteristics-the important variable in-
fluencing individuals’ perceived range of career options is not their
measured abilities, but their beliefs concerning their competence in
various behavioral domains. Thus, self-efficacy theory incorporates
the phenomenological basis of Super’s ideas about the self-concept.
Finally, because it is embedded within a learning theory of its origins
that is directly applicable to counseling interventions (see Betz, 1992
for a discussion of the counseling uses of career self-efficacy theory),
self-efficacy theory has applied as well as theoretical utility.

Gottfredson’s Theory

Another useful application of self-concept theory was proposed by

Gottfredson ( 1981). Gottfredson argued that the importance of self-
concept is that it forces an integration of psychological and non-

36 THE CAREER DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY I SEPTEMBER 1994 I VOL. 43

psychological (e.g., environmental) factors influencing career choice
and development. She also noted the importance of a developmental
consideration of the process by which views of oneself are integrated
with perceptions of occupational characteristics and demands to
move toward acceptable levels of self-occupation congruence.
Gottfredson’s theory operationalized the processes by which self-
concept and occupational concepts are compared as those of cir-
cumscription (narrowing) of career choice alternatives and com-
promise between preferences and employment realities. Central to
both these processes were perceptions of self-job compatibility along
three important dimensions: occupational sex-type, prestige, and
field of work. Gottfredson suggested that sex-type influences choices
because, through the process of circumscription, society in the
United States functions to limit individuals’ perceived career options
to a reduced range of appropriately sex-typed alternatives. Once this
range is set, according to Gottfredson somewhere between the ages
of 6 and 8, occupations outside this range will not be considered
except under unusual circumstances. Thus, Gottfredson’s view sug-
gests serious restrictive effects of occupational sex-stereotyping on
women’s aspirations. Furthermore, Gottfredson suggested that when
compromises between preferences and employment realities must
be made, people will most readily sacrifice field of work and will
least readily sacrifice sex type. Again, gender role stereotypes are
postulated to have a powerful effect on choices.
Research has generally examined the constructs of circumscription
and compromise separately. Although the length of this article can-
not accommodate a detailed review (but see Betz & Fitzgerald, 1993,
and Brooks, 19901, the large body of research has suggested the need
for modifications in Gottfredson’s theory. For example, contrary to
Gottfredson’s postulate that the range of alternatives is cir-
cumscribed (by acceptable zone of sex type, prestige, and interests)
with increasing age, Leung and Harmon (1990) reported that the
range of acceptable alternatives increased from early childhood
through adolescence, stabilizing at about age 18. In addition, there
seem to be several variables moderating both the nature and extent
of circumscription. Research findings consistently suggest that sex
type may limit boys’ choices more than girls-girls are much more
likely to prefer and choose male-stereotypic careers than boys are
to prefer female-stereotypic careers (Hannah & Kahn, 1989; Hender-
son, Hesketh, & Tuffin, 1988; Leung & Harmon, 1990). Leung and
Harmon found the range of alternatives to vary as a function of
gender role orientation, with androgynous subjects most flexible in
both sex type and prestige preferences; Henderson e t al., (1988)
found ability more closely related than socioeconomic status (SES)
to prestige preferences.
Gottfredson’s ( 1981) postulate t h a t when career choice com-
promises are necessary individuals will sacrifice first their interests
(field of work), then their desired prestige levels, and last their
preferred sex type, has not been consistently supported (Holt, 1989).
If anything, sex type may be the least rather than the most impor-
tant factor. For example, the research of Hesketh and her colleagues

THE CAREER DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY I SEPTEMBER 1994 I VOL. 43 37

(Hesketh, Durant, & Pryor 1990; Hesketh, Elmslie, & Kaldor, 1990)
has consistently suggested that individuals of both sexes are more
willing to compromise on sex type and prestige than on interests,
and Leung and Plake (1990) reported that sex type was compromised
before prestige except when men were forced to choose between a
high-prestige feminine occupation and low-prestige masculine oc-
cupation. Based on their research, Hesketh, Elmslie, and Kaldor
(1990) proposed that interests are the most salient factors in the
ultimate career choice process; they explained this by proposing that
concepts acquired later (interests) versus earlier (sex type) in
development incorporate elements of the earlier concepts and are
thus more salient, because they are more inclusive. It can be seen
that Gottfredson’s theory and the refinements based on the research
of others provide another useful explication of the role of self-concept
variables in career development.

Other Concepts Building on Super’s Theory

Borgen (1991) noted that recent work emphasizing human agency,

rather than the passivity that was associated with the trait-factor
school, represents a natural continuation of Super’s self-concept
theory as well as of Rogers’ (196 1) self-actualization and Kelly’s
(1955) personal construct theories. Bandura’s (1982) work on human
agency and self-efficacy, Mahoney’s ( 1991)constructivist approach
to human change processes, and Howard’s conceptual work (e.g.,
Howard & Conway, 1987; Howard & Myers, 1990) represented
specific approaches to the study of human agency.
As suggested by Osipow (1990), Super has operationally defined
his self-concept notions in his theory and research on role salience.
As reviewed more extensively by Cook (1994), Super and Nevill’s
( 1986) Salience Inventory assesses participation in and commitment
to five major life roles: student, worker, homemaker (including
spouse and parent), “leisurite,” and citizen. A further elaboration of
the concept of life roles in career development is provided by Brown
(1988).
Related to these ideas, concepts of multiple identities as important
to career development are increasing in emphasis. Spenner and
Rosenfeld (1990) and Lobe1 (1991) used the concept of multiple iden-
tities to examine women’s choices regarding work-family conflicts
and transitions between employment and nonemployment. Gainor
and Forrest (1991) proposed a multiple self-referent model as a
framework for understanding self-concept formation and its re-
lationship to career development in African American women.
Aspects of these multiple self-referents include identities as African
American, as women, as an interpersonal being, and as a unique
individual. According to the model, career development is optimal
when the most salient self-referents can be expressed in one’s oc-
cupational environment.
Also related is the research program of Niemeyer (1988) and his
colleagues (Neimeyer, Nevill, Probert, & Fukayama, 1985) on the
concepts of the cognitive complexity of the self-schema, as originally

38 THE CAREER DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY / SEPTEMBER 1994 / VOL. 43

theorized by Bodden (1970) using the Cognitive Differentiation Grid,
an adaptation of Kelly’s (1955) Role Construct Repertory Test. Final-
ly, Vondracek, Lerner, and Shulenberg (1986) proposed a theory
designed to integrate the individual within a dynamic social-
organizational context, reminding us that elaborations of self-concept
theory must retain Super’s original emphasis on life-span career
development.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY, RESEARCH, AND

COUNSELING

Although these various research programs provide useful ways of

explicating the conceptual link(s) between self-concept variables
and career development, a more general recommendation is that of
Gottfredson (19851, who stressed the need for systematic analysis
of what constitutes the self-concept. The self-concept, although
having immense intuitive appeal, is simply too broad in its potential
meaning to be useful either theoretically or practically without care-
ful definition and specification. Gottfredson and others writing today
generally agree that the self-concept must be differentiated into
contents (what Gottfredson calls “identities”)versus evaluative com-
ponents (self-esteem). The suggestions that identities should include
public-social identities such as social class status and occupational
sex type (Gottfredson, 1985) or role identities such as those
measured by Super and Nevi11 (1986) do complicate the resulting
task of definition yet may also ensure its eventual comprehensive-
ness. If, however, there are multiple and varied identities as well
as evaluative aspects that constitute the self-concept, then some
hierarchical or taxonomic approach to description is also necessary.
In the hierarchical model of Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (19761,
global self-esteem is composed of second and third order facets (such
as academic self-concept and social self-concept), with the lowest
level involving self-concept relative to specific situations (akin to
self-efficacy). This model is illustrative and, most important,
amenable to measurement and thus testability.
In addition to definitional specificity and organizational par-
simony, applicability for counseling purposes must be considered.
Super (1990) noted, for example, the ease of translating self-esteem
and self-efficacy into treatment programs focusing on confidence
building. Thus, an ideal definition should include or imply sugges-
tions for counseling interventions. As mentioned, an exemplar of
this is career self-efficacy theory which, because it is based on learn-
ing theory, is embedded within a theory of the mechanisms of
change. The work of Gottfredson and others on career circumscrip-
tion and compromise, and Super and Nevill’s concept and measure
of role salience are also amenable to use in career counseling (see
Brooks, 1990).

THE CAREER DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY I SEPTEMBER 1994 / VOL. 43 39

SUMMARY
A contribution as massive in scope and potential as that of Super’s
self-concept theory would provide a well-deserved excuse to rest on
their laurels with pride and satisfaction for most scholars. But for
Donald Super, self-concept theory was only one of many significant
contributions. As so well stated by Borgen (1991) in his 20-year
retrospective of vocational psychology, “Few disciplines have the
good fortune to have a prodigious scholar at work on its problems
over six decades. Such is vocational psychology’s debt to Super” (p.
276). And Super not only gave us 60 years of his intellect, but he
was a model of an intrinsically motivated scholar for whom theory
development, research, and applied problem solving in vocational
behavior were among the great rewards of life. He thus contributed
not only the ideas but a love of ideas, a love which has been infectious
for others of us in the field. Ideas such as the self-concept pose
exciting challenges for theory and practice, and it is my hope that
this festschrift in honor of Donald Super will stimulate renewed
attention to these challenges.

REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychology Review, 84, 191-215.
B a n d u r a , A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism i n h u m a n agency. American
Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
Betz, N. E. (1992). Counseling uses of career self-effcacy theory. The Career Deuelop-
ment Quarterly, 41, 22-26.
Betz, N., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1993). Individuality and diversity: Theory and research
in counseling psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 343-381.
Betz, N. E., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1987). The career psychology of women. New York:
Academic Press.
Blocher, D. H., & Schultz, R. A. (1961). Relationships among self-descriptions, oc-
cupational stereotypes, and vocational preferences. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 8, 314-317.
Bodden, J. (1970). Cognitive complexity a s a factor in appropriate vocational choice.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 17, 364-368.
Borgen, F. H. ( 1991). Megatrends and milestones in vocational behavior: A 20-year
counseling psychology retrospective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 263-290.
Brooks, L. (1990). Recent developments in theory building. In D. Brown & L. Brooks
(Eds.), Career choice and deuelopment (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brophy, A. L. (1959). Self-, role, and satisfaction. Genetic Psychology Monographs,
54, 263-308.
Brown, D. (1988, April). Life-role development and counseling. Paper presented a t
the meeting of the National Career Development Association, Orlando, Florida.
Burgoyne, P. H. (1979). Concepts of present self, expected self, and ideal self in
vocational preferences and expectations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 134-
144.
Englander, M. E. (1960). A psychological analysis of vocational choice: Teaching.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 7, 257-264.
Gainor, K. A., & Forrest, L. (1991). African-American women’s self-concept: Implica-
tions for career decisions and career counseling. The Career Development Quarterly,
39, 261-272.

40 THE CAREER DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY / SEPTEMBER 1994 / VOL. 43

Gottfredson, L. S. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory
of career aspiration. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 4 1 6 4 2 7 .
Gottfredson, L. S. (1985). Role of self-concept in vocational theory. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology, 32, 159-162.
Hackett, G. (1985). The role of mathematics self-efficacy in the choice of math-related
majors of college women and men: A path model. Jouinal of Counseling Psychology,
32, 47-56.
Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development
of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 32G339.
Hannah, J . S., & Kahn, S. E. (1989). The relationship of socioeconomic status and
gender to the occupational choices of grade 12 students. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 34, 161-178.
Henderson, S., Hesketh, B., & Tuffin, K. (1988). A test of Gottfredson’s theory of
circumscription. Journal of Vocational Behauior, 32, 3 7 4 8 .
Hesketh, B., D u r a n t , C., & Pryor, R. (1990). Career compromise: A test of
Gottfredson’s theory using a policy-capturing procedure. Journal of Vocational Be-
hauior, 36, 97-108.
Hesketh, B., Elmslie, S., & Kaldor, W. (1990). Career compromise: An alternative
account to Gottfredson’s 1981 theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 49-56.
Holt, P. A. (1989).Differential effect of status and interest in the process of com-
promise. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 4 2 4 7 .
Howard, G. S., & Conway, C. G. (1987). The next steps toward a science of agency.
American Psychologist, 42, 1034-1035.
Howard, G. S., & Myers, P. R. (1990). Predicting human behavior: Comparing
idiographic, nomothetic, and agentic methodologies. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 37, 227-233.
Kelly, G . A. (1955). A theory of personality: The psychology of personal constructs.
New York: Norton.
Kidd, J. (1984). The relationship of self and occupational constructs to the occupa-
tional preferences of adolescents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 24, 48-65.
Korman, A. K. (1967). Self-esteem a s a moderator of the relationship between self-
perceived abilities and vocational choice. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 51, 65-67.
Lemkau, J. P. (1983). Personality characteristics of women in male-dominated oc-
cupations: A review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4, 221-240.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1986). Self-efficacy in the prediction of
academic success and perceived career options. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
33, 265-269.
Lent, R. W., & Hackett, G. (1987). Career self-efficacy: Empirical status and future
directions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30, 347-382.
Leung, S . A,, & Harmon, L. W. (1990). Individual and sex differences in the zone of
acceptable alternatives. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 153-159.
Leung, S. A,, & Plake, B. S. (1990). A choice dilemma approach for examining the
relative importance of sex type and prestige preferences in the process of career
choice compromise. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 399-406.
Lobel, S. A. (1991). Allocation of investment in work and family roles. Academy of
Management Review, 16, 507-521.
Mahoney, M. J. (1991). Human change processes: The scientific foundations of
psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to
academic outcomes: A metaanalytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 38, 30-38.
Neimeyer, G. J. (1988). Cognitive integration and differentiation in vocational be-
havior. The Counseling Psychologist, 16, 4 4 0 4 7 5 .
Neimeyer, G. J., Nevill, D. D., Probert, B., & Fukuyama, M. ( 1985). Cognitive struc-
tures in vocational development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 27, 191-201.
Nunnally, J . (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
Osipow, S. H. (1983). Theories ofcareer development (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

THE CAREER DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY / SEPTEMBER 1994 / VOL. 43 41

Osipow, S. H. (1990). Convergence in theories of career choice and development:
Review and prospect. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 122-131.
Pryor, R. G. L. (1985). Toward exorcising the self-concept from psychology: Some
comments on Gottfredson’s circumscriptiodcompromise theory. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology, 32, 154-158.
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Rooney, R. A,, & Osipow, S. H. (1992). Task-specific occupational self-efficacy scale:
The development and validation of a prototype. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
40, 14-32.
Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of
construct interpretation. Review of Educational Research, 46, 4 0 7 4 4 1.
Spenner, K. I., & Rosenfeld, R. A. (1990). Women, work, and identities. Social Science
Research, 19, 266-299.
Stake, J. (1979). The ability performance dimension of self-esteem: Implications for
women’s achievement behavior. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 3, 365-377.
Stein, J. A,, Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1990). The relative influence of
vocational behavior and family involvement on self-esteem. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 36, 320-338.
Super, D. E. (1951). Vocational adjustment: Implementing a self-concept. Occupa-
tions, 30, 88-92.
Super, D. E. (1953). A theory of vocational development. American Psychologist, 8,
185-190.
Super, D. E. (1963). Self-concepts in vocational development. In D. E. Super (Ed.),
Career development: Self-concept Theory (pp. 1-16). New York: College Entrance
Examination Board.
Super, D. E. (1990). A life-span space approach to career development. In D. Brown,
& L. Brooks, & Associates (Eds.), Career choice and development (2nd ed.; pp.
197-261). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Super, D. E., & Nevill, D. D. (1986). The Salience Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Tageson, C. F. ( 1960). The relationship of self perceptions to realism of vocational
preference. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.
Taylor, K. M., & Popma, J . (1990). Construct validity of the career decision-making
self-efficacy scale and the relationship of CDMSE t o vocational indecision. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 37, 17-31.
Tinsley, D. J.,& Faunce, P. S. (1980). Enabling, facilitating, and precipitating factors
associated with women’s career orientation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17,
183-194.
Vondracek, F. W., Lerner, R. M., & Schulenberg, J . E. (19861. Career development: A
life-span developmental approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Walsh, W. B., & Osipow, S. H. (Eds.) (1994). Career counseling for women. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Wheeler, C. L., & Carnes, E. F. (1968). Relationships among self-concepts, ideal-self
concepts and stereotypes of probable and ideal vocational choices. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology, 15, 530-535.
Ziegler, D. J. (1970). Self-concept, occupational member concept, and occupational
interest area relationships in male college students. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 17, 133-136.

42 THE CAREER DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY I SEPTEMBER 1994 / VOL. 43