Journal of Career Assessment: Five-Factor Model and Difficulties in Career Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis

Journal ofhttp://jca.sagepub.
com/
Career Assessment
Five-Factor Model and Difficulties in Career Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis

Kelly M. Martincin and Graham B. Stead
Journal of Career Assessment published online 19 February 2014
DOI: 10.1177/1069072714523081
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jca.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/02/18/1069072714523081
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Journal of Career Assessment can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jca.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jca.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Feb 19, 2014
What is This?
Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on November 26, 2014
Article
Journal of Career Assessment
1-17
ª The Author(s) 2014
Five-Factor Model and Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Difficulties in Career Decision DOI: 10.1177/1069072714523081
jca.sagepub.com
Making: A Meta-Analysis
Kelly M. Martincin1 and Graham B. Stead1
Abstract
Meta-analysis was employed to investigate the relationship between personality constructs of the five-
factor model (FFM) and difficulties in career decision making (DCDM). Twenty studies with one to five
quantitative FFM constructs were selected for review. The present study found evidence that the traits
of the FFM of personality can predict DCDM. There was a statistically significant positive relationship
between Neuroticism and DCDM, and statistically significant negative relationships between
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Openness. Mean effect sizes were small (<.30)
with Neuroticism being the highest, closely followed by Conscientiousness, and with Agreeableness
being the lowest. Both age and nationality of sample were found to be significant moderators of
FFM constructs and DCDM. The discussion includes implications for research and practice.
Keywords
personality, five-factor model, difficulties in career decision making, career indecision, career
indecisiveness, meta-analysis
The purpose of this study is to integrate results from personality studies and difficulties in career
decision making (DCDM) to understand the role personality plays in DCDM. DCDM is complex
and prevalent. Information about who experiences DCDM may help career counselors develop new
interventions as this phenomenon becomes better understood. Specifically, this study provides evi-
dence that DCDM is related to personality factors, as opposed to or in conjunction with situational
factors. This could assist in further research on this relationship for counseling interventions and
practice. In addition, there are no published meta-analyses specifically on the five-factor model
(FFM) and DCDM relationship, though examinations of related constructs do exist. This suggests
further investigations into the relationship between personality and DCDM.
Meta-analysis was employed to investigate the relationship between personality constructs of the
FFM and DCDM. The importance of meta-analysis is that it enables one to summarize relationships
1
College of Education and Human Services, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH, USA
Corresponding Author:
Kelly M. Martincin, College of Education and Human Services, Julka Hall 213, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH
44115, USA.
Email: k.martincin@csuohio.edu
2 Journal of Career Assessment
between variables across many studies and provides overall mean relationships of these scores.
Through large samples sizes, a meta-analysis offers more statistical power than individual studies
and also attempts to explain heterogeneity of scores across studies. It involves research synthesis
and includes the aggregation of empirical and statistical data from various studies that may be pub-
lished or unpublished (Card, 2012; Whiston & Li, 2011). Lipsey and Wilson (2001) advocated for
using both published and unpublished studies. They pointed out that the effects of published research
are generally larger than unpublished research, leading to an upward bias in results. It has been
argued that the FFM can account for most personality traits and that each factor represents common
variance among many specific personality traits (McCrae & Costa, 1997).
Since the earliest days of the field of vocational psychology, personality has been a key compo-
nent to understanding careers and how they impact an individual’s life. Work by Parsons included
addressing ‘‘personal characteristics’’ as part of his approach in 1909. Dating back to Holland’s
RIASEC model (Holland, 1958), one of the most popular models for career selection in the field,
it has been clear that one must tailor career choice to the individual, so that each individual poten-
tially can be happy, stress-free, and productive in the workforce. Related to this, personality plays a
key role in how one shapes a career (Costa, McCrae, & Holland, 1984) and whether one may expe-
rience DCDM. The FFM is arguably one of the most well-known models of personality in the field
of psychology. Barrick, Mount, and Gupta (2003, pp. 46–47) define the five components as the fol-
lowing: ‘‘These dimensions (and prototypical characteristics) include Extraversion (sociable, active,
energetic), Agreeableness (cooperative, considerate, trusting), Conscientiousness (dependable,
organized, persistent), Emotional Stability (calm, secure, unemotional), and Openness to Experience
(imaginative, intellectual, artistically sensitive).’’ The trait of emotional stability is also frequently
referred to by its inverse, neuroticism, which is emotional instability and is commonly associated
with anxious or highly emotional personality types (Costa et al., 1984).
DCDM is multifaceted and comprise indecision (also referred to as undecidedness) and indeci-
siveness (Gati, 2013). In addition, both indecisiveness and indecision are themselves multifaceted
and multidimensional. Indecision is considered to be a transient state where one has not made a deci-
sion and this can be due to many different reasons, such as not having enough information about
various careers or knowledge of one’s self in relation to careers. Indecisiveness is viewed as a trait
where one experiences chronic indecision and has difficulty in making a decision. This is typically
attributed to psychological barriers, rendering the decision maker unable to come to a decision (Gati,
2013). Indecisiveness is related to several emotional and psychological constructs including self-
confidence and fear of commitment (Gati, 2013; Stead & Watson, 2006). Rottinghaus and Miller
(2013) suggested that traits and states are highly related because traits reflect an ongoing pattern
of states, so indecisiveness is a product of an ongoing pattern of indecision. As Kelly and Lee
(2002) pointed out, there is no widely agreed-upon definition of DCDM. In their research among
university students, they concluded that DCDM comprise many factors such as information deficit,
identity diffusion, trait indecision, choice anxiety, and interpersonal disagreements related to career
choice. For the purposes of the present analysis, it was decided that both indecision and indecisive-
ness would be included as the topic of interest in DCDM (Gati, 2013; Gati, Krausz, & Osipow,
1996). DCDM is considered an umbrella term for anyone who is having trouble making a decision,
whether this is a transient state of indecision or a pattern of difficulties resulting in indecisiveness.
This decision is supported by literature that states that one can use multiple constructs and multiple
measures in a single meta-analysis (Lipsey, 2009). The example Lipsey (2009) provided was the use
of both grade point average and scholastic aptitude test scores to measure scholastic aptitude. While
these are somewhat different constructs, they are in fact very similar and one can use a meta-analysis
to examine both under the umbrella construct of scholastic aptitude.
Gati, Krausz, and Osipow (1996) created a taxonomy of career decision making to highlight how
complex a process it can be. While DCDM are not necessarily problematic, issues for concern can
Martincin and Stead 3
arise before decision making begins, or once one is engaged in the process of decision making. Prior
to the process, problems typically arise from a lack of readiness in one or several of the following
areas related to personality: lack of motivation, indecisiveness, internal and external conflicts, and
lack of information about oneself. Problems that arise during the process of decision making are some-
times rooted in lack of information about oneself, occupations, or ways of obtaining information, or
inconsistent information due to unreliable information, internal conflicts, or external conflicts (Gati,
Krausz, & Osipow, 1996). This taxonomy clearly illustrates that while career decision making is a
complex process, personality can play a key role in helping or hindering this navigation process.
Meta-Analysis of Personality and Career Decision Making

A meta-analysis investigated the relationship between career decision-making self-efficacy and a
selection of related variables including gender, age, race, self-esteem, vocational identity, career
barriers, peer support, vocational outcome expectations, and career indecision (Choi et al., 2012).
Self-esteem, vocational identity, peer support, vocational outcome expectations, and career indeci-
sion were all found to correlate statistically significantly with career decision-making self-efficacy.
Of these, self-esteem and vocational identity appeared to have the largest effects (weighted averages
were r ¼ .48 and .49, respectively). Career indecision was found to have a strong negative correla-
tion, r ¼ .52, with career decision-making self-efficacy (Choi et al., 2012). Choi et al.’s work
demonstrated that personality aspects can play a key role in career decision-making self-efficacy,
and thus it is understandable that personality can play a role in career decision making.
The preceding meta-analysis demonstrates not only that personality and many vocational psy-
chology constructs are highly related but also that meta-analysis is a useful form of inquiry for pro-
viding estimates of association and heterogeneity across similar studies. Using meta-analysis, one
can create a singular outcome from many independent studies observations, providing evidence
to inform future research and practice in the area of personality and DCDM. This form of investi-
gation is ideal to examine the relationship between personality and DCDM because clinicians in the
field can use the singular findings of a meta-analysis to be more aware of how personality can per-
haps be related to decision making for the client.
Method
Literature Search and Coding
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to use secondary data from empirical literature to summarize
and compare findings of the relationship between career indecision and FFM constructs. DCDM
were determined as referring to constructs such as career indecision, career undecidedness, career
uncertainty, developmental indecision, and indecisiveness, all with a focus on careers and work
(Gati, 2013). It did not include constructs such as career decision making or career decision-
making styles. Studies with one to five quantitatively FFM constructs were selected for review,
namely agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness.
The search terms utilized were ‘‘big five,’’ ‘‘five factor,’’ ‘‘openness,’’ ‘‘conscientiousness,’’
‘‘extraversion,’’ ‘‘agreeableness,’’ ‘‘neuroticism,’’ ‘‘indecision,’’ ‘‘undecidedness,’’ ‘‘undecided,’’
‘‘indecisiveness,’’ ‘‘decision,’’ ‘‘decided,’’ and ‘‘uncertainty.’’ Published and unpublished research
was employed, so as to limit sampling and publication bias and null findings bias in publications
(Card, 2012; Cooper, 2010). Unpublished research included two dissertations and these were
included because ‘‘including only published studies is generally considered problematic’’ (Card,
2012, p. 41). In addition, a study by Dalton, Aguinis, Dalton, Bosco, and Pierce (2012) found that
dissertations and published studies have almost the same correlations. As a result of these inclusive
criteria, 34 articles from 1996 to 2012 were originally obtained from Academic Search Complete,
Table 1. Demographic Information of Studies Employed.
Article Origin of sample Mean age Age range
Albion and Fogarty (2002) Australia 15.91 —

Al-Kalbani, Salleh, and Mastor (2011) Oman 16.51 12–21
Bullock-Yowell, Peterson, Reardon, Leierer and Reed (2011) United States 20.3 18–39
Di Fabio and Palazzeschi (2009) Italy 21.09 18–30
Di Fabio and Palazzeschi (2012) Italy 17.51 16–19
Feldt et al. (2010) United States 20.53 17–20
Feldt and Woelfel (2009) United States 19.11 —
Gati et al. (2011) Israel 22.67 17–35
Germeijs and Verschueren (2011) Belgium 17.1 —
Gunkel, Schlaegel, Langella, and Peluchette (2010) China 24.71 —
Gunkel et al. (2010) Germany 23.02 —
Gunkel et al. (2010) United States 22.42 —
Hirschi (2009) Switzerland 17.5 16–20
Hirschi (2009) Switzerland 14.1 13–16
Hirschi, Niles, and Akos (2011) Switzerland 14.09 12–16
Kelly and Pulver (2003) United States — —
Leong and Chervinko (1996) United States — 18–25
Lounsbury et al (1999) United States — —
Lounsbury, Hutchens, and Loveland (2005) United States 15.39 —
*Salter (2008) United States — —
*Smith (2011) United States 18.36 —
Starica (2012) Romania — 18–19
Wang, Jome, Haase, and Bruch (2006) United States 20 —
Note: Separate samples within a single study are provided. *Denotes unpublished work.
PsycINFO, World Cat, Academic Search Complete, Education Search Complete, Education Full
Text, ERIC, Psychological and Behavioral Sciences Collection, Social Sciences Full Text, Voca-
tional and Career Collection, ProQuest Dissertation, Google Scholar, and PsyNet, and included
U.S. and international studies. Once a list of references was available, only those references that had
quantitative measures of the FFM scales and DCDM were selected. In addition, references had to
have statistics demonstrating the relationship of any of the FFM scales and career decision-
making difficulty (CDMD), such as r or statistics that could be converted to r. Twenty of these arti-
cles were found to be acceptable for use. Lipsey and Wilson (2001) stated that meta-analyses do not
require a large number of studies and that two or three studies could suffice. Reference lists of the
articles were also examined in search of further articles, but yielded no additional material. The
raters were in complete agreement regarding the selection of studies.
All studies examined the relationship between the FFM and DCDM. Sample sizes for the studies
employed varied from 52 to 2,046. Inclusionary criteria were adolescents, university students, young
adults, and adults. The mean age range across all studies utilized in the meta-analysis was 14.09–
24.71 years. Only studies that provided data measuring the relationship between one or more FFM
constructs and DCDM (including both indecision and indecisiveness) were included. Date of pub-
lications was not limited as part of the inclusionary criteria, and studies dated from 1996 to 2012.
Demographic information of studies employed is presented in Table 1.
All studies used one of the following instruments to measure the FFM: International Personality
Item Pool, Five Factor Domain Scale (Goldberg, 1997); Adolescent Personality Style Inventory
(Lounsbury et al., 2003); NEO Five Factor Inventory—including international versions (Costa &
McCrae, 1992; Hoekstra, Ormel, & de Fruyt, 1996); Big Five Questionnaire (Caprara, Barbaranelli,
& Borgogni, 1993); NEO Personality Inventory–Revised (Costa & McCrae, 1992); Multidimensional
Perfectionism Scale (Hewitt & Flett, 1991); Transition to College Inventory (Lounsbury et al., 2003);
and the Big Five Inventory (Benet-Martinez & John, 1998). All studies used one of the following to
measure DCDM: Career Decision Difficulty Questionaire (Gati, Osipow, & Krausz, 1996); Career
Decision-Making Indicators (Al-Kalbani & Salleh, 2010); Occupational Alternatives Questionnaire
(Zener & Schnuelle, 1972); Career Decision Scale (Osipow, 1987); Emotional and Personality Career
Difficulties Scale (Saka, Gati, & Kelly, 2008); Indecisiveness Scale (Germeijs & De Boeck, 2002);
Career Maturity Inventory (Crites, 1973); Career Factors Inventory (Chartrand & Robbins, 1997); and
the Career Decidedness Scale (Lounsbury, Tatum, Chambers, Owens, & Gibson, 1999). While these
inventories are not necessarily measuring identical constructs, the constructs are all similar and fall
under the umbrella term of DCDM. In addition, literature on best practices for conducting meta-
analyses specifically states that one can conduct a meta-analysis with different constructs (Lipsey,
2009).
Data Analytic Strategy

When conducting a meta-analysis, a decision needs to be made between using a fixed effects model
or a random effects model. In a random effects model, one estimates a population distribution of
effect sizes and hence generalizability beyond the study is sought. This is opposed to a fixed effects
model, in which one only makes inferences regarding the studies one has analyzed. According to
Hunter and Schmidt (2004), the fixed effect model has larger biases than the random effects model
and they recommended the random effects model. The random effects model is also used when het-
erogeneity is present, as within- and between-studies variability can be taken into account (Huedo-
Medina, Sánchez-Meca, Marı́n-Martı́nez, & Botella, 2006). A random effects model includes (1)
estimating the heterogeneity of effect sizes using the Q statistic and the extent of heterogeneity using
I2. I2 scores of 25%, 50%, and 75% are considered to reflect low, moderate, and high heterogeneity,
respectively (Huedo-Medina et al., 2006), (2) estimating the population variance (t2) of effect sizes,
(3) calculating random effects weights wi ; namely the inverse of t þ SE2 (square of the standard
2
error of the effect size), and (4) employing random effects weights to estimate mean effect sizes. The
random effects mean effect size is calculated as Zr ; which is transformed to the random effects mean
correlation, r (Card, 2012).
One may also utilize a moderating variable in a random effect model, should heterogeneity be
present, and or a theoretical rationale is available. This is calculated as Qregression, which is calculated
as Zr ¼ B0 þ B1 ðvariable; e:g:; ageÞþe; Zr using wi as the weight in a multiple regression model.
The statistical significance of the resultant SSregression is determined by comparing it to a w2
distribution (Card, 2012). Categorical moderator analysis may also be used (Card, 2012; Lipsey
& Wilson, 2001) in which total heterogeneity (Qtotal) comprises between-group and within-group
heterogeneity. Qbetween has a w2 distribution and equals Qtotal Qwithin :
Results
A random effects model was employed (Card, 2012) based on the preceding rationale of Hunter and
Schmidt (2004). MIX 2.0 meta-analysis software (Bax, Yu, Ikeda, Tsuruta, & Moons, 2006) was
also employed and checked using the appropriate formulae in Microsoft EXCEL. Synthesis forest
plots for the relationships between each of the five factors and DCDM are also provided. Forest plots
provide the point estimates of the effect sizes (i.e., the boxes on the plots) and 95% confidence inter-
vals (CIs; i.e., horizontal lines) for each study. The filled boxes and the size of each box reflect each
study’s relative weighting in the overall mean effect size. The overall mean effect size is represented
by a dark vertical line and its diamond-shaped base provides evidence of its variability. The thin
vertical line represents .00 correlation (Borman & Grigg, 2009; Card, 2012).
See Table 2 for the results for each relationship analyzed. The results for Agreeableness and
DCDM were n ¼ 8,180, k (group n) ¼ 18, Q ¼ 137.94, df ¼ 17, p < .001, I2 ¼ 87.68% t2 ¼ .02;
and r ¼ .09 (95% CI [.16, .03]). The synthesis forest plot for the relationship between Agree-
ableness and CDMD is given in Figure 1. The results for Conscientiousness and DCDM were
n ¼ 8,268, k ¼ 18, Q ¼ 47.61, df ¼ 17, p < .001, I2 ¼ 64.29%, t2 ¼ .00; and r ¼ .22 (95% CI
[.26, .18]). The synthesis forest plot for the relationship between Conscientiousness and DCDM
is given in Figure 2. The results for Extraversion and DCDM were n ¼ 8,551, k ¼ 20, Q ¼ 137.17,
df ¼ 19, p < .001, I2 ¼ 86.15%, t2 ¼ .02; and r ¼ .16 (95% CI [.22, .10]). The synthesis forest
plot for the relationship between Extraversion and DCDM is given in Figure 3. The results for Neu-
roticism and DCDM were n ¼ 9,261, k ¼ 23, Q ¼ 552.76, df ¼ 22, p < .001, I2 ¼ 96.02%, t2 ¼ .06;
and r (mean r converted from Zr ) ¼ .23 (95% CI [.12, .33]). The synthesis forest plot for the rela-
tionship between Neuroticism and DCDM is given in Figure 4. The results for Openness and DCDM
were n ¼ 8,367, k ¼ 19, Q ¼ 149.36, df ¼ 18, p < .001, I2 ¼ 87.95%, t2 ¼ .02; and r ¼ .13 (95% CI
[.20, .07]). The synthesis forest plot for the relationship between Openness and DCDM is given
in Figure 5. The heterogeneity found in these relationships provides a further rationale for the use of
a random effects model (Huedo-Medina et al., 2006).
Moderating Variables
It was decided to employ age as a moderating variable, as both personality (Specht, Egloff, &
Schmukle, 2011) and DCDM (Guay, Ratelle, Senécal, Larose, & Deschênes, 2006) are known to
fluctuate with age and to address heterogeneity. In this study, Zr for ages 15, 20, and 25 (representing
the mean age range across all references) was regressed on age as the hypothesized moderator using
the Qregression formula described earlier. Ages 15, 20, and 25 were selected because Super’s (1957)
developmental stage of ‘‘Exploration’’ typically occurs between ages 15 and 25. During this stage,
individuals begin gathering information of the world of work and make many crucial decisions. Sub-
stages of ‘‘Exploration’’ can include clarifying, specifying, and implementing, and ages 15, 20, and
25 are roughly when individuals may be experiencing these substages. Zr and the CIs were then con-
verted to implied r for the various ages. Age was a statistically significant moderating variable for
Neuroticism (Qregression ¼ 108.835, p ¼ .0001), Agreeableness (Qregression ¼ 27.711, p ¼ .0001), and
Extraversion (Qregression ¼ 23.096, p ¼ .0001), but not for Conscientiousness (Qregression ¼ 2.394,
p ¼ .1239) and Openness (Qregression ¼ 1.699, p ¼ .2449). For Neuroticism, implied r (converted
from Zr) according to age was .11 (age 15; 95% CI[.09, .13]), .30 (age 20; 95%CI [.28, .32]), .48
(age 25; 95% CI[.46, .49]). For Agreeableness implied r was .16 (age 15; 95% CI [.17,
.14]), .05 (age 20; 95% CI[.07, .03]), and .06 (age 25; 95% CI[.04, .08]); and for Extraversion
implied r was .06 (age 15; 95% CI[.09, .05]), .17 (age 20; 95% CI[.19, .15]), and .27
(age 25; 95% CI [.28, .24]).
In addition, Sample Type, namely U.S. and non-U.S. studies, was also used as a categorical mod-
erator, as different geographic regions may produce different relationships between DCDM and the
FFM variables and also explain heterogeneity. The purpose was to determine whether the U.S. and
non-U.S. groups differed statistically significantly on between-group heterogeneity. Here, total het-
erogeneity is partitioned into between- and within-group components (Card, 2012), as described ear-
lier. Sample Type was a statistically significant moderating variable for Neuroticism (Qbetween ¼
164.4847, p ¼ .0001; U.S. weighted ES ¼ .1326, non-U.S. weighted ES ¼ .4005), Extraversion
(Qbetween ¼ 48.00, p ¼ .0001; U.S. weighted ES ¼ .06, non-U.S. weighted ES ¼ .0002), and
Agreeableness (Qbetween ¼ 36.3757, p ¼ .0001; U.S. weighted ES ¼ .1353, non-U.S. weighted
ES ¼ .0014), but not for Openness (Qbetween ¼ 1.03, p ¼ .3101) and Conscientiousness (Qbetween
¼ 3.74, p ¼ .0531). It should also be noted that statistically significant heterogeneity may also be the
Table 2. Study Data for Five-Factor Model Scales and Difficulties in Career Decision Making.
Five Factor Scales
Agreeableness Conscientiousness Extraversion Neuroticism Openness

a
Studies n ES r 95% CIs ES r 95% CIs ES r 95% CIs ES r 95% CIs ES r 95% CIs
Albion and Fogarty (2002) 121 .12 [.29, .06] 0.28 [0.44, 0.11] 0.18 [0.35, 0.00] 0.19 [0.01, 0.36] 0.13 [0.30, 0.05]
Al-Kalbani, et al. (2011) 230 .15 [.27, .02] 0.21 [0.33, 0.08] 0.20 [0.32, 0.07] 0.05 [0.18, 0.08] 0.23 [0.35, 0.10]
Bullock-Yowell et al. (2011) 232 0.08 [0.05 0.21]
Di Fabio and Palazzeschi (2009) 296 .24 [.34, .13] 0.34 [0.44, 0.24] 0.47 [0.55, 0.38] 0.36 [0.26, 0.46] 0.40 [0.49, 0.30]
Di Fabio and Palazzeschi (2012) 143 .01 [.15, .17] 0.11 [0.27, 0.06] 0.26 [0.41, 0.10] 0.30 [0.14, 0.44] 0.18 [0.33, 0.02]
Feldt and Woelfel (2009) 179 .19 [.33, .04] 0.15 [0.29, 0.00] 0.03 [0.18, 0.12] 0.16 [0.01, 0.30] 0.03 [0.18, 0.12]
Feldt et al. (2010) 686 .23 [.30, .16] 0.3 [0.37, 0.23] 0.07 [0.14, 0.00] 0.16 [0.09, 0.23] 0.03 [0.04, 0.10]
Gati et al. (2011) 1119 .20 [.14, .26] 0.29 [0.34, 0.24] 0.26 [0.31, 0.20] 0.60 [0.56, 0.64] 0.06 [0.00, 0.12]
Germeijs and Verschueren (2011) 543 .08 [.16, .00] 0.33 [0.40, 0.25] 0.21 [0.29, 0.13] 0.60 [0.54, 0.65] 0.09 [0.17, 0.01]
Gunkel et al. (a) (2010)b 196 .08 [.22, .06] 0.21 [0.34, 0.07] 0.04 [0.18, 0.10] 0.15 [0.01, 0.28] 0.14 [0.27, 0.00]
Gunkel et al. (b) (2010)b 210 .11 [.24, .03] 0.13 [0.26, 0.01] 0.27 [0.39, 0.14] 0.10 [0.23, 0.04] 0.54 [0.63, 0.44]
Gunkel et al. (c) (2010)b 149 .10 [.26, .06] 0.14 [0.29, 0.02] 0.06 [0.22, 0.10] 0.23 [0.07, 0.38] 0.22 [0.37, 0.06]
Hirschi (a) (2009)c 289 .10 [.21, .02] 0.10 [0.21, 0.01] 0.06 [0.16, 0.05] 0.16 [0.04, 0.27] 0.04 [0.14, 0.06]
Hirschi (b) (2009)c 255 .17 [.28, .05] 0.21 [0.33, 0.09] 0.13 [0.24, 0.00] 0.16 [0.04, 0.28] 0.01 [0.12, 0.13]
Hirschi et al. (2009)c 349 0.19 [0.08 0.29]
Kelly and Pulver (2003) 566 .07 [.01, .15] 0.18 [0.26, 0.10] 0.10 [0.18, 0.02] 0.39 [0.32, 0.46] 0.01 [0.09, 0.07]
Leong and Chervinko (1996) 217 0.15 [0.02, 0.28]
Lounsbury et al. (1999) 249 .18 [.30, .06] 0.25 [0.36, 0.13] 0.10 [0.22, 0.02] 0.30 [0.18, 0.41] 0.11 [0.18, 0.04]
Lounsbury et al. (2005) 851 .10 [.17, .03] 0.24 [0.30, 0.18] 0.05 [0.12, 0.02] 0.09 [0.16, 0.02] 0.11 [0.23, 0.01]
Salter (2008) 52 .02 [.25, .29] 0.05 [0.31, 0.23] 0.06 [0.32, 0.22] 0.09 [0.36, 0.18] 0.07 [0.21, 0.33]
Smith (2011) 2,046 .11 [.15, .07] 0.15 [0.20, 0.11] 0.02 [0.06, 0.02] 0.16 [0.12, 0.20] 0.14 [0.18, 0.10]
Starica (2012) 99 0.23 [0.41, 0.03] 0.46 [0.29, 0.60] 0.30 [0.47, 0.11]
Wang et al. (2006) 184 0.44 [0.55, 0.32] 0.47 [0.35, 0.58]
Note: aES r ¼ Effect size correlation coefficient.
b
Gunkel (a), (b), and (c) are Chinese, German, and U.S. samples, respectively.
c
Hirshi (a) and (b) are Grade 7 and Grade 8 data, respectively.
7
Author Year
Albion & Fogarty 2002
Al-Kalbani et al. 2011
Di Fabio & Palazzeschi 2009
Feldt & Woelfel 2009
Feldt et al. 2010
Gati et al. 2011
Germeijs &
2011
Verschueren
Gunkel et al. (a) 2010
Gunkel et al. (b) 2010
Gunkel et al. (c) 2010
Hirschi (a) 2009
Hirschi (b) 2009
Kelly & Pulver 2003
Lounsbury et al. 1999
Salter 2008
Smith 2011
– 0.5 – 0.3 – 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5

Effect Size r
Figure 1. Forest plot of the effect sizes between agreeableness and difficulties in career decision making.
result of large samples (Saroglou, 2002), such as those used in some of the studies. See Table 2
where sample sizes for six studies exceeded 500 and comprised 62.7% (n ¼ 9,261) of the total.
Publication Bias
To determine whether there was publication bias, it was decided to use the approach suggested by
Sterne and Egger (2005) and also found in Card (2012). In this approach, one estimates Kendall’s t
rank correlation between the adjusted effect size and the adjusted variance of estimate. If the correla-
tion is statistically significant (p < .01), this suggests funnel plot asymmetry, that is, publication bias.
This approach is preferred to the funnel plot, as it overcomes the subjectivity of visual inspections. The
results for Kendall’s correlation were as follows: Openness and DCDM (t ¼ .17, p ¼ .31), Agree-
ableness and DCDM (t ¼ .19, p ¼ .27), Conscientiousness and DCDM (t ¼ .23, p ¼ .18), Extraver-
sion and DCDM (t ¼ .18, p ¼ .27), and Neuroticism and DCDM (t ¼ .07, p ¼ .65). These results
suggest that there was no publication bias.
Discussion
Overall, the present study found evidence that the traits of the FFM of personality can predict
DCDM; however, while findings were statistically significant (p < .001), mean effect sizes were
Author Year
Feldt et al. 2010
Gati et al. 2011
Germeijs &
2011
Verschueren
Hirschi (a) 2009
Hirschi (a) 2009
Kelly & Pulver 2003
Salter 2008
Smith 2011
– 0.5 – 0.3 – 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5

Effect Size r
Figure 2. Forest plot of the effect sizes between conscientiousness and difficulties in career decision making.
small (<.30) with Neuroticism being the highest, closely followed by Conscientiousness, and with
Agreeableness being the lowest. While causation cannot be inferred, a predictive relationship can
help guide clinicians and further research. When one considers neuroticism as a trait, with those who
score high in this area being known for being ‘‘anxious, hostile, envious, insecure, depressed, self-
conscious, moody, impulsive, and vulnerable’’ (Barrick, Mount, & Gupta, 2003), it is understand-
able that these individuals may be prone to difficulty with decision making and that this would
be related to their abilities to make decisions regarding careers. Related to this, agreeable types are
known to be the opposite, namely a flexible type who are pleasant, cooperative, and compassionate,
so they are likely to be less impacted by the stress of decision making about career choices, espe-
cially if their choice is supported by others. Conscientiousness is a trait that is linked to people who
are meticulous and will see a task through to the finish with attention to every detail. Conscientious-
ness had a low but positive correlation, suggesting that they may experience decision-making diffi-
culty, perhaps because they want to make the right choice the first time, but they do not experience
decision-making difficulties as much as the other personality types. Extraverted types are outgoing
and social, and openness is a trait that best describes people who tend to be creative, imaginative,
curious, and with broad interests. Both of these types had small, negative correlations. Kelly and Lee
(2005) reported that the relationship between extraversion and DCDM could be attributed to extra-
verts needing more time to explore their multiple and varied interests before making career deci-
sions. This argument could also be applied to Open types with their broad interests.
Author Year
Feldt et al. 2010
Gati et al. 2011
Germeijs &
2011
Verschueren
Hirschi (a) 2009
Hirschi (b) 2009
Kelly & Pulver 2003
Salter 2008
Smith 2011
Starica 2012
Wang et al. 2006
– 0.7 – 0.5 – 0.3 – 0.1 0.1 0.3

Effect Size r
Figure 3. Forest plot of the effect sizes between extraversion and difficulties in career decision making.
Implications for Counseling and Future Research

FFM personality variables may be more strongly related to DCDM than previously thought. This
study provides additional information for both future research and practice. Using Gati, Krausz, and
Osipow’s (1996) taxonomy of career decision making and the results from the present analysis,
career counselors may better understand the predisposing factors of DCDM, how the client’s spe-
cific personality type might be contributing to DCDM, and what interventions would be most appro-
priate in resolving decision-making impasses.
The relationship between age and Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Extraversion needs to be con-
sidered for counseling and interventions. This research showed that the relationships of these con-
structs to DCDM increase with age. This provided some evidence for the variation in mean
correlation effect sizes of the personality constructs in relation to career indecision. The counselor
needs to be attentive to how these personality constructs may be contributing to the client’s career
indecision. Previous research has suggested that these traits may play a role in school and work at
different ages (Poropat, 2009). Poropat discusses several potential reasons for this. The first is poten-
tially a factor of assessment tools used, although Poropat notes that all measures in his analysis were
age-appropriate. The next is that children are undergoing drastic changes, cognitively and otherwise,
between primary, secondary, and tertiary schooling, so the changes demonstrated in the research
may be an artifact of natural changes occurring during normal growth.
10
Author Year
Bullock-Yowell et al. 2011
Feldt et al. 2010
Gati et al. 2011
Germeijs &
2011
Verschueren
Gunkel et al. 2010(a)
Gunkel et al. 2010(b)
Gunkel et al. 2010(c)
Hirschi 2009(a)
Hirschi 2009(b)
Hirschi et al. 2011
Kelly & Pulver 2003
Leong & Chervinko 1996
Salter 2008
Smith 2011
Starica 2012
Wang et al. 2006
– 0.5 – 0.3 – 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7

Effect Size r
Figure 4. Forest plot of the effect sizes between neuroticism and difficulties in career decision making.
An additional moderating variable, United States versus foreign populations in relation to the
FFM traits, was also found to be statistically significant for Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Agree-
ableness, but not for Openness and Conscientiousness. The FFM has been studied extensively in
multiple cultures and appears to be an instrument that generalizes well and can be used internation-
ally (Brown & Lent, 2013), leaving one to consider the cultural differences of CDMD. There may be
many reasons for this including cultural differences between the U.S. and other populations in terms
of the relationship between personality and DCDM between the U.S. and other populations. Part of
this may be cultural difference in decision making and related to this, values of various cultures. In
one study of Chinese, Japanese, and American populations, it was found that Japanese individuals
experienced far more indecision than the Chinese and American participants (Yates et al., 2010).
The authors attributed this to Japanese culture’s attention to thoroughness, more so than Chinese and
American cultures, and suggest that this is perhaps a reason that Japanese individuals may experi-
ence more DCDM (Yates et al., 2010). Another study examined the levels of indecision between
American college students and Peruvian college students and found that American students experi-
enced more indecision than their Peruvian counterparts (Arce, 1995). A third study examined
DCDM among American and Taiwanese college students and found that Taiwanese students expe-
rienced more DCDM than the American sample (Mau, 2001). An additional study by Mau (2004)
examined CDMD differences between White, African American, Hispanic, and Asian American
11
Author Year
Feldt et al. 2010
Gati et al. 2011
Germeijs &
2011
Verschueren
Gunkel et al. 2010(a)
Gunkel et al. 2010(b)
Gunkel et al. 2010(c)
Hirschi 2009(a)
Hirschi 2009(b)
Kelly & Pulver 2003
Salter 2008
Smith 2011
Starica 2012
– 0.7 – 0.5 – 0.3 – 0.1 0.1 0.3

Effect Size r
Figure 5. Forest plot of the effect sizes between openness and difficulties in career decision making.
high school students and found that Asian Americans experienced the greatest amount of DCDM
while White students experienced the least amount of DCDM. A fifth study contradicted the findings
of the previous literature, stating that they found no significant difference in DCDM between British
university students and their Chinese international student counterparts (Zhou & Santos, 2007).
Taken together, the larger body of available research suggests that cultural differences in DCDM
do exist. Such findings may explain why there are statistically significant differences in the relation-
ship between FFM and DCDM in terms of Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Agreeableness found in
this study. It is possible that these differences are the results of cultural difference in DCDM and not
necessarily the FFM. Rottinghaus and Miller (2013) support this notion and specifically state that
cultural influences may interact with personality traits and other variables to affect one’s career
goals. However, further research needs to examine this suggestion.
It is important to consider potential cultural differences, as this finding could have implications
for future research and practice in career counseling. First, while cultural differences may exist in
terms of the relationship between personality and DCDM, extreme caution must be demonstrated
when attempting to use assessment tools or intervention techniques outside the country for which
the item was normed for. Some research does suggest that certain instruments can be used cross-
culturally, such as one study verifying the use of an indecisiveness scale for both Chinese and Malay
populations (Swami et al., 2008), so one must be cognizant of the most recent research on measures
12
one intends to use with clients. Second, even when instruments and interventions designed and
normed in the United States are used with immigrant populations or populations from other coun-
tries, extreme caution must be taken to make sure the results of assessment are valid and that inter-
ventions are appropriate for that individual (Tracey & Gupta, 2008). While these practices may seem
obvious to the informed and ethical career counselor, the implications of improper use of assessment
tools and interventions cannot be overstated in light of these results. Finally, it is also possible that
the heterogeneity findings in this study may be an artifact of large sample sizes in the samples uti-
lized. Six of the studies had samples exceeding 500, with 2 exceeding 1,000.
Limitations
This research included both peer-reviewed articles and doctoral dissertations to include both pub-
lished and unpublished research. Unpublished research was included in an attempt to reduce the
‘‘file drawer effect.’’ This is common practice in meta-analysis (Card, 2012; Whiston & Li,
2011). Articles in languages other than English were not considered, which could be considered a
limitation of this research. In addition, a limitation of all meta-analyses is that the quality of the
meta-analysis is directly related to the quality of the data that are included. Measures were taken
to only include studies using reliable and valid instruments. Each measure was examined and was
determined to be reliable and valid.
Summary and Conclusion

This research shows that DCDM are multidimensional and complex and that their relationships to per-
sonality are important. Astute clinicians should be aware of this relationship and use the present anal-
ysis to guide future research and interventions. While the present analysis is only one piece of a much
larger puzzle of difficulties in career decision making, it may hold the key for better understanding of
the struggles of many who are entering or changing positions in the workforce. It also emphasizes the
importance of further research on FFM and DCDM and cultural differences according to DCDM.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies used in the meta-analysis.
*Albion, M. J., & Fogarty, G. J. (2002). Factors influencing career decision making in adolescents and adults.
Journal of Career Assessment, 10, 91–126.
Al-Kalbani, M. S., & Salleh, A. (2010). Developing a career decision making indicator (CDMI). Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 2146–2153.
*Al-Kalbani, M. S. A., Salleh, A., & Mastor, K. A. (2011). Career decision making constructs and Five-Factor
model in adolescents. World Applied Sciences Journal, 14, 34–39.
Arce, E. M. (1995). Career indecision: Cross cultural differences in cluster analysis among two groups of
undergraduate students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, CA.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Gupta, R. (2003). Meta-analysis of the relationship between the Five-Factor
model of personality and Holland’s occupational types. Personnel Psychology, 56, 45–74.
13
Bax, L., Yu, L. M., Ikeda, N., Tsuruta, H., & Moons, K. G. M. (2006). Development and validation of MIX:
Comprehensive free software for meta-analysis of causal research data. BMC Medical Research
Methodology, 6, 50. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-50
Benet-Martı́nez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait mul-
timethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,
729–750.
Borman, G., & Grigg, J. (2009). Visual and narrative interpretation. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C.
Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (pp. 497–519). New York, NY:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (2013). Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
*Bullock-Yowell, E., Peterson, G. W., Reardon, R. C., Leierer, S. J., & Reed, C. A. (2011). Relationships
among career and life stress, negative career thoughts, and career decision state: A cognitive information
processing perspective. The Career Development Quarterly, 59, 302–314. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2011.
tb00071.x
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Borgogni, L. (1993). BFQ: Big five questionnaire. Manuale (2nd ed.) [BFQ:
Big five questionnaire. Manual]. Firenze, Italy: O.S. Organizzazioni Speciali.
Card, N. A. (2012). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. New York, NY: Guilford.
Chartrand, J. M., & Robbins, R. B. (1997). Career factors inventory applications and technical guide. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Choi, B. Y., Park, H., Yang, E., Lee, S. K., Lee, Y., & Lee, S. M. (2012). Understanding career decision self-
efficacy: A meta-analytic approach. Journal of Career Development, 39, 443–460. doi:10.1177/
0894845311398042
Cooper, H. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis. A step-by-step approach (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor
inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Holland, J. L. (1984). Personality and vocational interests in an adult sample.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 390–400.
Crites, J. O. (1973). Theory and research handbook for the career maturity inventory. Monterey, CA: CTB/
McGraw Hill.
Dalton, D. R., Aguinis, H., Dalton, C. H., Bosco, F. A., & Pierce, C. A. (2012). Revisiting the file drawer prob-
lem in meta-analysis: An assessment of published and nonpublished correlation matrices. Personnel
Psychology, 65, 221–249. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01243.x
*Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2009). Emotional intelligence, personality traits and career decision difficulties.
International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 9, 135–146. doi:10.1007/s10775-009-9162-3
*Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2012). Incremental variance of the core self-evaluation construct compared to
fluid intelligence and personality traits in aspects of decision making. Personality and Individual Difference,
53, 196–201. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.012
*Feldt, R. C., Ferry, A., Bullock, M., Camarotti-Carvalho, A., Collingwood, M., Eilers, S., . . . Woelfel, C. (2010).
Factorial structure of the career decision scale: Incremental validity of the Five-Factor domains. Measurement
and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 42, 235–245. doi:10.1177/0748175609354575
*Feldt, R. C., & Woelfel, C. (2009). Five-Factor personality domains, self-efficacy, career-outcome expecta-
tions, and career indecision. College Student Journal, 43, 429–437.
Gati, I. (2013). Advances in career decision making. In W. B. Walsh, M. L. Savickas, & P. J. Hartung (Eds.),
Handbook of vocational psychology (4th ed., pp. 183–215). New York, NY: Routledge.
*Gati, I., Gadassi, R., Saka, N., Hadadi, Y., Ansenberg, N., Friedmann, R., & Asulin-Peretz, L. (2011).
Emotional and personality-related aspects of career decision-making difficulties: Facets of career indeci-
siveness. Journal of Career Assessment, 19, 3–20. doi:10.1177/1069072710382525
14
Gati, I., Krausz, M., & Osipow, S. H. (1996). A taxonomy of difficulties in career decision making. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 43, 510–526.
Gati, I., Osipow, S. H., & Krausz, M. (1996). Career decision-making difficulties questionnaire (Available from
Samuel H. Osipow, Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, 1885 Neil Ave Mall, Columbus,
OH 43210).
Germeijs, V., & De Boeck, P. (2002). A measurement scale for indecisiveness and its relationship to
career indecision and other types of indecision. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18,
113–122.
*Germeijs, V., & Verschueren, K. (2011). Indecisiveness and Big Five personality factors: Relationship and
specificity. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 1023–1028. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.01.017
Goldberg, L. (1997). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level
facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. DeFruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.),
Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., Senécal, C., Larose, S., & Deschênes, A. (2006). Distinguishing developmental from
chronic career indecision: Self-efficacy, autonomy, and social support. Journal of Career Assessment, 14,
235–251.
*Gunkel, M., Schlaegel, C., Langella, I. M., & Peluchette, J. V. (2010). Personality and career decisiveness. An
international empirical comparison of business students’ career planning. Personnel Review, 39, 503–524.
doi:10.1108/00483481011045443
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization, assess-
ment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456–470.
*Hirschi, A. (2009). Development and criterion validity of differentiated and elevated vocational interests in
adolescents. Journal of Career Assessment, 17, 384–401. doi:10.1177/1069072709334237
*Hirschi, A., Niles, S. G., & Akos, P. (2011). Engagement in adolescent career preparation: Social support, per-
sonality, and the development of choice decidedness and congruence. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 173–182.
doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.12.009
Hoekstra, H. A., Ormel, J., & de Fruyt, F. (1996). NEO persoonlijkheidsvragenlijsten: NEO-PI-R, NEO-FFI.
Handleiding [NEO Personality Inventories: Manual]. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Holland, J. L. (1958). A personality inventory employing occupational titles. Journal of Applied Psychology,
42, 336–342.
Huedo-Medina, T. B., Sánchez-Meca, J., Marı́n-Martı́nez, F., & Botella, J. (2006). Assessing heterogeneity in
meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? Psychological Methods, 11, 193–206.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis. Correcting error and bias in research find-
ings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kelly, K. R., & Lee, W. (2002). Mapping the domain of career decision problems. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 61, 302–326.
Kelly, K. R., & Lee, W. (2005). Relation of psychological type to career indecision among university students.
Journal of Psychological Type, 64, 11–20.
*Kelly, K. R., & Pulver, C. A. (2003). Refining measurement of career indecision types: A validity study.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 81, 445–454.
*Leong, F. T. L., & Chervinko, S. (1996). Construct validity of career indecision: Negative personality traits as
predictors of career indecision. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 315–329. doi:10.1177/106907279600400306
Lipsey, M. W. (2009). Identifying interesting cariables and analysis opportunities. In H. Cooper, L. V.
Hedgers, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (4th ed.,
pp. 148–149). New York, NY: Sage.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
*Lounsbury, J. W., Hutchens, T., & Loveland, J. M. (2005). An investigation of Big Five personality traits and
career decidedness among early and middle adolescents. Journal of Career Assessment, 13, 25–39. doi:10.
1177/1069072704270272
15
Lounsbury, J. W., Tatum, H., Gibson, L. W., Park, S. H., Sundstrom, E. D., Hamrick, F. L., & Wilburn, D.
(2003). The development of a Big Five adolescent personality scale. Psychoeducational Assessment, 21,
111–133.
*Lounsbury, J. W., Tatum, H. E., Chambers, W., Owens, K. S., & Gibson, L. W. (1999). An investigation of
career decidedness in relation to ‘‘Big Five’’ personality constructs and life satisfaction. College Student
Journal, 33, 646–650. doi:10.1177/1069072704270272
Mau, W. C. (2001). Assessing career decision-making difficulties: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Career
Assessment, 9, 353–364.
Mau, W. C. J. (2004). Cultural dimensions of career decision-making difficulties. The Career Development
Quarterly, 53, 67–77.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist,
52, 509–516.
Osipow, S. H. (1987). Manual for career decision scale. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a vocation. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Poropat, A. (2009). A meta-analysis or the Five Factor model of personality and academic performance.
Psychological Bulletin, 135, 322–338. doi:10.1037/a0014996
Rottinghaus, P. J., & Miller, A. D. (2013). Convergence of personality frameworks within vocational psychol-
ogy. In W. B. Walsh, M. L. Savickas, & P. J. Hartung (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology (4th ed.,
pp. 105–131). New York, NY: Routledge.
Saka, N., Gati, I., & Kelly, K. R. (2008). Emotional and personality-related aspects of career decision-making
difficulties. Journal of Career Assessment, 16, 403–424.
*Salter, S. C. (2008). Comparing outcomes of two instructional approaches to a career development course
(Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Saroglou, V. (2002). Religion and the five factors of personality: A meta-analytic review. Personality and
Individual Differences, 32, 15–25.
*Smith, R. M. (2011). Personality traits and career decidedness: An empirical study of University Students
(Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Specht, J., Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. (2011). Stability and change of personality across the life course: The
impact of age and major life events on mean-level and rank-order stability of the big five. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 862–882.
*Starica, E. C. (2012). Predictors for career indecision in adolescence. Procedia—Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 33, 168–172. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.105
Stead, G. B., & Watson, M. B. (Eds.). (2006). Career decision-making and career indecision. In G. B. Stead, &
M. B. Watson (Eds.), Career psychology in the South African context (2nd ed., pp. 94–109). Pretoria, South
Africa: Van Schaik.
Sterne, J. A. C., & Egger, M. (2005). Regression methods to detect publication and other bias in meta-analysis.
In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention,
assessment and adjustments (pp. 75–98). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Super, D. E. (1957). The psychology of careers. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Swami, V., Sinniah, D., Subramaniam, P., Pillai, S. K., Kannan, K., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2008). An
exploration of the indecisiveness scale in multiethnic Malaysia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
39, 309–316. doi:10.1177/022022108315544
Tracey, T. J. G., & Gupta, S. (2008). Interest assessment in an international context. In J. A. Athanasou, & R.
Van Esbroek (Eds.), International handbook of career guidance (pp. 525–537). Paris, France: Springer.
*Wang, N., Jome, L. M., Haase, R. F., & Bruch, M. A. (2006). The role of personality and career decision-
making self-efficacy in the career choice commitment of college students. Journal of Career Assessment,
14, 312–323. doi:10.1177/1069072706286474
Whiston, S., & Li, P. (2011). Meta-analysis: A systematic method for synthesizing counseling research. Journal
of Counseling & Development, 89, 273–281.
16
Yates, J. F., Ji, L. J., Oka, T., Lee, J. W., Shinotsuka, H., & Sieck, W. R. (2010). Indecisiveness and culture:
Incidence, values, and thoroughness. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 428–444. doi:10.1177/
00220221093559692
Zener, T. B., & Schnuelle, L. (1972). An evaluation of the self-directed search: A guide to educational and
vocational planning (Technical Report No. 124). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for the
Social Organization of Schools.
Zhou, D., & Santos, A. (2007). Career decision-making difficulties of British and Chinese international
students. British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 35, 219–235. doi:10.1080/03069880701256684
17

Journal of Career Assessment: Five-Factor Model and Difficulties in Career Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Career Assessment: Five-Factor Model and Difficulties in Career Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal ofhttp://jca.sagepub.

Five-Factor Model and Difficulties in Career Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jca.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Feb 19, 2014

Kelly M. Martincin1 and Graham B. Stead1

Meta-Analysis of Personality and Career Decision Making

Table 1. Demographic Information of Studies Employed.

Article Origin of sample Mean age Age range

Albion and Fogarty (2002) Australia 15.91 —

Data Analytic Strategy

Five Factor Scales

Agreeableness Conscientiousness Extraversion Neuroticism Openness

– 0.5 – 0.3 – 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5

– 0.5 – 0.3 – 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5

– 0.7 – 0.5 – 0.3 – 0.1 0.1 0.3

Implications for Counseling and Future Research

– 0.5 – 0.3 – 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7

– 0.7 – 0.5 – 0.3 – 0.1 0.1 0.3

Summary and Conclusion

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

You might also like