Contextual Supports and Barriers to Career Choice: A Social Cognitive Analysis
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Journal of Counseling Psychology Copyright 2000 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
2000, Vol. 47, No. 1,36-49 0022-0167/00/S5.00 DO1: 10.1037//0022-0167.47.1.36
Contextual Supports and Barriers to Career Choice:
A Social Cognitive Analysis
Robert W.Lent Steven D. Brown
University of Maryland Loyola University Chicago
Gail Hackett
Arizona State University
Social cognitive career theory (SCCT; R. W. Lent, S. D. Brown, & G. Hackett, 1994)
emphasizes cognitive-person variables that enable people to influence their own career
development, as well as extra-person (e.g., contextual) variables that enhance or constrain
personal agency. Although the theory has yielded a steady stream of inquiry and practical
applications, relatively little of this work has examined SCCT's contextual variables or
hypotheses. In this article, several avenues for stimulating study of the contextual aspects of
career behavior are considered. In particular, the authors (a) examine "career barriers," a
conceptually relevant construct, from the perspective of SCCT; (b) advocate study of
contextual supports as well as barriers; and (c) propose additional context-focused research
and practice directions derived from SCCT.
Social cognitive career theory (SCCT) represents a rela- conceptual and measurement status of the barriers construct,
tively new effort to understand the processes through which and have discussed ways in which SCCT may be used as a
people form interests, make choices, and achieve varying framework for studying and modifying barrier effects (Al-
levels of success in educational and occupational pursuits bert & Luzzo, 1999; Swanson, Daniels, & Tokar, 1996;
(Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994). Anchored in Bandura's Swanson & Woitke, 1997). In this article, we consider
(1986) general social cognitive theory, SCCT focuses on SCCT's account of environmental effects in light of research
several cognitive-person variables (e.g., self-efficacy, out- on career barriers, and attempt to build stronger linkages
come expectations, and goals), and on how these variables between these two areas of inquiry. We begin by summariz-
interact with other aspects of the person and his or her ing SCCT's conceptual statements about the interplay among
environment (e.g., gender, ethnicity, social supports, and environmental and person variables in the career choice
barriers) to help shape the course of career development. process. We then briefly critique the recent literature on
Although the theory has stimulated much research and career barriers from the vantage point of social cognitive
practical activity (e.g., see Brown & Lent, 1996; Lent, theory. Finally, we suggest several areas in which SCCT's
Brown, & Hackett, 1996; Swanson & Gore, in press), most analysis of environmental effects may be clarified and
of this work has focused on SCCT's cognitive-person elaborated. Our critique and conceptual refinements are
variables alone, in isolation from important environmental intended to stimulate further context-sensitive research and
(e.g., social, cultural, and economic) variables that are intervention efforts derived from SCCT.
assumed to influence both the cognitive-person variables
and other aspects of career behavior.
Recent research on barriers to career development, or SCCT View of Environmental Effects
career barriers, is clearly relevant to SCCT's environmental
hypotheses. Reviews of this literature have examined the Lent et al. (1994) partitioned SCCT into two complemen-
tary levels of theoretical analysis. The first level presented
cognitive-person variables (self-efficacy, outcome expecta-
Robert W. Lent, Department of Counseling and Personnel tions, personal goals) that enable people to exercise agency
Services, University of Maryland; Steven D. Brown, Department of (i.e., personal control) within their own career development.
Leadership, Foundations, and Counseling Psychology, Loyola The second level of analysis considered the paths through
University Chicago; Gail Hackett, Division of Psychology in which several additional sets of variables—such as physical
Education, Arizona State University. attributes (e.g., sex and race), features of the environment,
An earlier version of this article was presented as part of the and particular learning experiences—influence career-
symposium, "Social Cognitive Theory's Extension to Counseling related interests and choice behavior. Drawing on general
Psychology: Three Domains" (L. M. Larson, Chair), at the 106th social cognitive theory assumptions (Bandura, 1986), Lent
Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association,
San Francisco, August 18,1998. et al. (1994) hypothesized that person, environment, and
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to behavior variables affect one another through complex,
Robert W. Lent, Department of Counseling and Personnel Services, reciprocal linkages. In this section, we briefly revisit SCCT's
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742. Electronic conceptualization of environmental variables, highlighting
mail may be sent to RL95@umail.umd.edu. their subjective versus objective features, their temporal
36SOCIAL COGNITIVE CAREER THEORY 37
nature, and their presumed causal paths relative to career A focus on the perceived environment presents several
behavior. theoretical and practical challenges. For instance, on the one
hand, such a focus seems necessary to account for individual
differences in response to similar environmental conditions.
Objective and Perceived Aspects of the Environment Yet, on the other hand, if taken too far, assumptions about
According to SCCT, career development is influenced contextual effects existing (only) in people's minds can lead
both by objective and perceived environmental factors. to attributions that blame the victim (or, conversely, credit
Examples of objective factors include the quality of the the beneficiary) of received environmental conditions. Many
educational experiences to which one has been exposed and people have encountered persons who achieved great career
the financial support available to one for pursuing particular and life successes despite the environmental odds against
training options. Such objective factors can potently affect them; similarly, there are many stories of people who have
one's career development, whether or not one specifically failed in life's pursuits despite having every seeming environ-
apprehends their influence. However, the effect of a particu- mental advantage. If environmental conditions like material
lar objective factor often depends at least partly on the wealth were the only important consideration, all poor kids
manner in which the individual appraises and responds to it would fail and all rich ones would succeed. Yet obviously
(Vondracek, Lerner, & Schulenberg, 1986). Hence, in SCCT life is not so simple. Career development theorists, there-
people are not seen as mere passive repositories of past or fore, need to consider multiple, potentially compensatory
present environmental influences. They can certainly be aspects of the objective environment—such as economic
affected adversely or beneficially by events that are beyond conditions, parental behaviors, and peer influences (cf.
their control or awareness; yet, how individuals construe the Arbona, in press)—as well as how individuals make sense
environment and themselves also affords the potential for of, and respond to, what their environment provides.
personal agency in one's career development.
SCCTs conceptualization of the subjective psychological Distal and Contemporary Environmental Influences
environment is adapted from Astin's (1984) notion of the
perceived "opportunity structure" and from Vondracek et In addition to the objective and perceived aspects of the
al.'s (1986) "contextual affordance" construct. Both the environment, SCCT highlights the temporal period during
Astin and Vondracek et al. positions emphasize that the which particular environmental influences occur. For concep-
opportunities, resources, barriers, or affordances presented tual convenience, environmental variables are divided into
by a particular environmental variable may be subject to two basic categories according to their relative proximity to
individual interpretation. Thus, these positions suggest that the career choice-making process. The first category (shown
it is important to attend to the person's active phenomenologi- at the lower left part of Figure 1) contains distal, background
cal role in processing both positive and negative environmen- contextual factors that affect the learning experiences through
tal influences. (We will hereafter use the terms environmen- which career-relevant self-efficacy and outcome expecta-
tal and contextual interchangeably to refer to career-relevant tions develop. Examples include the types of career role
influences that exist, or are perceived to exist, in the milieu models to which one is exposed and the sort of support or
surrounding the person.) discouragement one receives for engaging in particular
Contextual Influences
Proximal to Choice Behavior
Person Inputs
Self-efficacy I I
- Predispositions Expectations f ^ I 1
- Gender 1
- Race/ethnicity
- Disability/ / i
Health status
Learning
/ 1
i •
Experiences
\
Interests Goals
-** Actions
Background \ .
Contextual Outcome
Affordances Expectations
Figure I. Model of social cognitive influences on career choice behavior. Note that dotted paths indicate moderator effects on interest-goal
and goal-action relations. From "Toward a Unifying Social Cognitive Theory of Career and Academic Interest, Choice, and Performance"
[Monograph], by R. W. Lent, S. D. Brown, and G. Hackett, 1994, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, p. 93. Copyright 1994 by R. W. Lent,
S. D. Brown, and G. Hackett. Reprinted with permission.38 LENT, BROWN, AND HACKETT
academic or extracurricular activities. The second, proximal, influential others may hold sway over the individual's own
category of contextual influences is particularly important personal career preferences. In a recent test of this hypoth-
during active phases of educational or career decision esis within a sample of Asian American college students,
making (see the upper right part of Figure 1). Examples of two contextual variables (family involvement and accultura-
proximal influences include the adequacy of one's informal tion) and self-efficacy were stronger predictors of an index
career contacts or exposure to discriminatory hiring prac- of career choice than were personal interests (Tang, Fouad,
tices. Figure 2 summarizes the primary ways in which distal & Smith, 1999). In individualistic cultures as well, career
versus proximal contextual factors (or affordances) are interests or goals often need to be subjugated to economic or
hypothesized to affect the career choice process. other environmental presses. Thus, SCCT posits that, when
confronted by such presses, an individual's choice behavior
Direct and Moderating Effects may be guided less by personal interests than by other
of Environmental Variables environmental and person factors (e.g., availability of accept-
able if nonideal options, coupled with self-efficacy and
According to SCCT, proximal environmental variables outcome expectations related to these options).
can moderate and directly affect the processes by which
people make and implement career-relevant choices. Specifi- Career Barriers: A Complementary Construct
cally, proximal (and anticipated) contextual factors may
moderate the relations of (a) interests to choice goals, and Unfortunately, owing partly to a lack of theory-derived
(b) goals to actions. As shown in Figure 1, one's primary measures for assessing contextual factors, SCCT's environ-
interests are likely to prompt corresponding goals (e.g., mental hypotheses have generally received limited inquiry
social interests lead to intentions to pursue a social-type to this point. However, career barriers, a construct that is
career); goals, in turn, promote choice-relevant actions (e.g., conceptually related to SCCT, has received a surge of
applying for a training program related to one's goal). renewed interest among researchers in recent years (see
However, contextual influences help determine how these Albert & Luzzo, 1999; McWhirter, Torres, & Rasheed,
processes unfold. It is posited that people are less likely to 1998; Swanson et al., 1996; Swanson & Woitke, 1997). In
translate their career interests into goals, and their goals into this section, we examine the recent career barriers literature
actions, when they perceive their efforts to be impeded by from the perspective of SCCT, considering ways in which
adverse environmental factors (e.g., insurmountable barriers these two lines of inquiry may be strengthened through their
or inadequate support systems). Conversely, the perception closer linkage.
of beneficial environmental factors (e.g., ample support, few Swanson and her colleagues have documented the evolu-
barriers) is predicted to facilitate the process of translating tion of research on career-related barriers, noting that this
one's interests into goals and goals into actions. construct emerged largely from the literature on women's
In addition to their moderating effect on the choice career development (Swanson et al., 1996; Swanson &
process, contextual factors may assert a direct influence on Woitke, 1997). In particular, barriers were seen as a mecha-
choice making or implementation. For example, particularly nism for explaining the restriction of women's career
in collectivist cultures and subcultures, the wishes of aspirations and the oft-noted gaps between their abilities and
Choice-Distal
Contextual Affordances Career-relevant
Learning Experiences
e.g., opportunity for skill
development, range of
available role models
Choice-Proximal Moderates Interest-Goal Relation
Contextual Affordances
Moderates Goal-Action Relation
e.g., career network
contacts, external Direct Effect on Goals and/or
barriers Choice Actions
Figure 2, Hypothesized effects of distal versus proximal contextual factors (or affordances) on the
career choice process. Copyright 1998 by R. W. Lent, S. D. Brown, and G. Hackett. Printed with
permission.SOCIAL COGNITIVE CAREER THEORY 39
their achievements. The barrier construct has subsequently conceptually, between the person (e.g., low self-efficacy)
been extended to the study of men's and racial-ethnic and contextual (e.g., disapproval of significant others)
minority group members' career development. Although factors that hamper career progress. Although person and
several theorists have considered the role of barriers in contextual variables are seen as being in continual, recipro-
career development (e.g., Farmer, 1976) and research on cal interplay over the course of an individual's career
career barriers has increased noticeably in recent years, development (e.g., environmental conditions help to shape
Swanson et al. (1996) have suggested that inquiry on self-efficacy beliefs, which, in turn, affect one's response to
barriers has been beset by two major problems: environmental challenges), this does not mean that person
and contextual variables represent a single, monolithic
(a) The barriers construct has lacked a firm theoretical
framework into which research findings could be incorporated source of influence.
and from which subsequent research hypotheses could be Efforts to distinguish person and contextual factors that
derived, and (b) most of the empirical research has been constrain career development may have several theoretical
conducted with measures that have been idiosyncratic to the and practical benefits, such as helping to (a) clarify the
investigators' particular studies, (p. 220)
processes through which contextual barriers, such as bias in
Our reading of this literature led us to concur with Swanson opportunities for skill development, become internalized;
et al.'s assessment, and we attempt to build on their (b) suggest novel counseling and developmental strategies
thoughtful critique of barriers research by highlighting a for coping with, or compensating for, environmentally
select group of topics that may engender refinements in the imposed barriers; and (c) identify differing intervention
conceptualization and assessment of career barriers. targets and roles for counselors (e.g., social advocacy,
system-level change), depending on the person or contextual
location at which a given negative influence is seen as
Barriers as Intrapersonal Versus occurring. In SCCT, barriers generally refers to negative
Environmental Impediments contextual influences, with the understanding that contextual
Swanson and Woitke (1997) defined barriers as "events or barriers are often functionally related to, yet conceptually
conditions, either within the person or in his or her distinct from, detrimental person factors (e.g., adverse
environment, that make career progress difficult" (p. 434). learning conditions can diminish self-efficacy).
This definition derives from the intuitively appealing notion
that barriers represent both intrapersonal (e.g., self-concept) Barriers as Generalized Versus
and environmental (e.g., workplace discrimination) factors
that hinder career development (Crites, 1969). Most career
Task-Specific Variables
barrier researchers have implicitly adopted this omnibus Research on career barriers has frequently sidestepped the
definition and, consequently, have often treated intraper- somewhat subtle, but crucial question: Barriers to what?
sonal and contextual barriers as conceptually equivalent That is, what is a given barrier deterring an individual from
(e.g., Luzzo, 1993; McWhirter, 1997). In addition, career doing? Obviously, barriers may impede virtually any aspect
development researchers have typically studied the effects of career progress (the term used in Swanson & Woitke's,
of perceived, as opposed to objectively defined, barriers (cf. 1997, definition of career barriers). Yet, for theoretical and
Swanson & Woitke, 1997). practical reasons, it seems important to consider barriers in
One justification for classifying all types of adverse relation to the more specific developmental tasks that
events and conditions—intrapersonal and contextual—as comprise career progress, such as career choice formulation,
career barriers is that such influences often occur together choice implementation, or career advancement.
and can be intimately intertwined (Swanson & Tokar, 1991a; Although certain barriers may be generalized or pervasive
Swanson & Woitke, 1997). For example, research partici- (e.g., negative family influences), the presence and effects of
pants often list a combination of person and contextual most barriers are likely to depend both on the developmental
hindrances when asked to indicate the career barriers they task facing the individual and on the specific choice options
have encountered (e.g., Lent et al., 1998), and researchers' he or she is entertaining. Consider a hypothetical college
efforts to classify particular participant-generated barriers student who chooses to major in art history, and promptly
into internal versus external categories can require a bit of discovers that his or her parents vehemently oppose this
interpretation (Swanson & Tokar, 1991a; Swanson & Woitke, choice, threatening to remove their monetary support. The
1997). Swanson and Woitke (1997) have noted that external social and financial barriers with which this student must
or environmental barriers are particularly difficult to classify contend are not generalized to all aspects of his or her career
"primarily because the locus of the barrier often could reside progress, but rather are linked to a particular developmental
either in the person or in the environment" (p. 433). task (major choice) and choice option (art history).
Although the decision to combine both person and Swanson and Tokar (1991a) found that college students
contextual hindrances under the larger rubric of career listed somewhat different barriers, depending on the nature
barriers is understandable, we believe that such a nondiffer- of the developmental task (e.g., "choosing a major or
entiated view of barriers may muddy the conceptual waters, career" versus "getting the first job"). Nevertheless, most
obscuring the potentially differing paths through which barriers research, using either open-ended questions (e.g.,
different factors impede career development. From the Luzzo, 1993) or structured questionnaires (Swanson &
perspective of SCCT, it is advantageous to distinguish, Tokar, 1991b), has not specified either the developmental40 LENT, BROWN, AND HACKETT
task or the content of the option that is being thwarted (e.g., Career barriers research has generally explored barriers at
students are asked to list barriers they have overcome or differing points along the temporal continuum. For example,
those they expect to encounter in the future in relation to Swanson and Tokar's (1991a) thought-listing study pre-
their career development generally). This omission may be sented participants with several different scenarios (e.g.,
based on implicit uniformity and trait assumptions about barriers to "choosing a major or career," to "getting the first
perceived barriers—namely, that barriers are generic and job," and to "advancing in career"), which, for their
ever-present, transcending particular choice domains and undergraduate participants, represented present and future
developmental considerations (e.g., an individual would career tasks. Luzzo's (1993, 1995, 1996; Luzzo & Hutche-
experience the same barrier regardless of the developmental son, 1996) thought-listing task asked students to list sepa-
tasks or choice options he or she faces). rately the past barriers they have encountered and the future
In its current form, SCCT deals primarily with contextual barriers they expect to face. McWhirter (1997) and her
variables related to making (formulating) and implementing colleagues (McWhirter, Hackett, & Bandalos, 1998;
(pursuing) career choices (Lent et al., 1994). These phases of McWhirter & Luzzo, 1996) assessed the barriers that high
the choice process are distinguished, in part, because school students anticipated in relation to future jobs and
different environmental conditions may become salient in college attendance.
formulating a career goal than in actually pursuing the goal.
For example, goal pursuit may expose the individual to These studies have assessed barriers within somewhat
monetary problems or discrimination that he or she had not differing time frames, although the emphasis has been on
anticipated when setting the goal. Moreover, barriers are relatively nonspecific beliefs about future barriers. For
assumed to be domain and context specific. Because most example, the Career Barriers Inventory (CBI) has partici-
adults either must work or choose to do so, barriers do not pants rate the degree to which a number of potential barriers
usually prevent their pursuit of all options. Rather, certain "would hinder your career progress," without specifying
barriers typically constrain pursuit of some courses of action when the barriers might be encountered (although the
but allow for the pursuit of other options or back-up plans. It approximate time frame is implicit in some items; Swanson
may, therefore, be useful to consider such questions as, what & Daniels, 1995). By contrast, there has been relatively little
types of barriers, encountered by which persons and at effort to study either the distal contextual barriers that
which stage of the choice process, will have what kinds of precede and help shape interests and initial career choices, or
impact? Although admittedly complex, this view reflects the the effects of proximal barriers on the pursuit of chosen
considerable variation that exists with respect to whether, options (e.g., Schaefers, Epperson, & Nauta, 1997)—yet,
how, and when particular barriers are experienced, and with both of these temporal locations are central to SCCTs
what effects. environmental hypotheses. The study of distal and proximal
barriers might usefully be approached from several method-
ological directions, such as qualitative interviews and longi-
Locating Barriers Along a Temporal Dimension tudinal research that tracks the emergence of particular
Along with an effort to "contextualize" barriers (e.g., to barriers, and people's response to them, over time. In a later
consider the specific phase of the choice process and the section, we provide some examples of recent studies of
nature of the options facing the individual), a social cogni- proximal barriers.
tive analysis would also "temporalize" barriers by differen-
tiating between barriers encountered in the past, those
hampering the person in the present, and those anticipated in Barrier Perceptions and Related Constructs
the future. As we noted previously, Lent et al.'s (1994) initial Just what is being measured by the various structured
theoretical statement divided contextual factors into two inventories (McWhirter, 1997; Swanson etal., 1996), thought-
broad categories, based on their relative proximity to active listing tasks (Luzzo, 1993; Swanson & Tokar, 1991a), and
career choice-making: interviews (Lent et al., 1998) that have been used to assess
(a) more distal, background influences that precede and help career barriers? The answer to this question bears impor-
shape interests and self-cognitions (e.g., differential opportuni- tantly on the construct validity of career barriers and has
ties for task and role model exposure; emotional and financial important implications for theories, such as SCCT, within
support for engaging in particular activities; cultural and
gender role socialization processes), and (b) proximal influ- which the barrier construct resides.
ences that come into play at critical choice junctures (e.g., At first blush, the above question may appear naive.
personal career network contacts; structural barriers, such as Barriers measures, regardless of their specific format, seem
discriminatory hiring practices.) (p. 107)
to have obvious face validity. They generally ask research
Within this scheme, historically distal versus contemporary participants to indicate the barriers they have experienced
(or proximal) contextual factors serve somewhat differing (Luzzo, 1993) or to rate the potential impact of various
functions. The distal factors affect the learning experiences adverse conditions on their future career behavior (Swanson
through which personal interests and other influences on et al., 1996). In responding to such tasks, one might suspect
career choice are forged, whereas choice-proximal factors that research participants simply supply their perceptions of
help form the opportunity structure within which career past or future barriers. However, given that barrier percep-
plans are made and implemented. tions represent, at least in part, people's phenomenologicalSOCIAL COGNITIVE CAREER THEORY 41
constructions of reality, there is potential for such percep- The emergence of separate coping efficacy measures is a
tions to be affected by certain qualities of the perceiver. In welcome sign, from the perspective of SCCT. Such mea-
essence, barrier perception measures can engage beliefs sures can be used to address research questions that are both
about the self or environment that extend beyond the mere theoretically and practically important. For example, are
presence or absence of particular barriers. We, therefore, barriers less likely to be perceived—or, when perceived, are
briefly consider career barriers vis-a-vis a few other poten- they less likely to be harmful to choice behavior—under
tially relevant theoretical constructs: coping efficacy, dispo- conditions of high versus low coping efficacy? Later, we
sitional affect, and outcome expectations. suggest some additional theory-derived research questions
Coping efficacy. In general, career barrier assessment involving coping efficacy that warrant empirical scrutiny.
devices may confound two conceptually distinct constructs: Dispositional affect. Another variable that needs to be
barrier perceptions and coping efficacy. Barrier perceptions distinguished from barrier perceptions is dispositional affect.
have been operationally defined by inventories that ask In outlining SCCT, Lent et al. (1994) suggested that
participants to rate the likelihood that they will encounter
tendencies to experience negative or positive affect might
certain conditions that most people would find as aversive
influence the way in which people process efficacy-relevant
(McWhirter, 1997) or by having them rate how much these
information. For example, those inclined toward high nega-
conditions would hinder their career progress, should the
tive affect may tend to discount their success experiences
conditions actually materialize (Swanson et al., 1996). It is
possible that people's responses to both of these rating tasks, and, thereby, fail to profit from what would ordinarily be an
and especially the latter, are influenced by their sense of efficacy-enhancing event. Likewise, it is possible that affec-
coping efficacy, that is, beliefs about their ability to manage tive tendencies may color perceptions of environmental
or negotiate the obstacles that appear on the inventories (cf. conditions. For example, high negative-affect experiences
Bandura, 1986, 1997; Hackett & Byars, 1996; Lent et al., may be likely to perceive more barriers and fewer supports
1994). Swanson et al. (1996) have also considered this than do those who experience low negative affect or high
conceptual overlap between coping efficacy and barrier positive affect. Dispositional affect could also conceivably
hindrance ratings. influence appraisals of coping efficacy, for example, with
To clarify, it is unlikely that people have "immaculate high negative affect leading to diminished beliefs about
conceptions" about barriers in their environments. Instead, one's ability to cope with particular barriers. Although
their prospective expectations about encountering particular speculative, such possibilities suggest the value of studying
hurdles are likely to reflect, in part, barriers they have dispositional affect both in relation to barrier perceptions
personally experienced, those they have learned about and coping efficacy.
vicariously, and beliefs about whether they could cope Outcome expectations. In their theoretical discussion of
successfully with these hurdles. Presumably, if one per- career barriers, Swanson et al. (1996) astutely noted that
ceives oneself as being able to cope effectively with a given SCCT is unclear about how barriers differ from outcome
event or environmental condition, one would be less likely expectations. The latter refers to personal beliefs about the
to define it as a barrier. Hence, asking how much a particular consequences of performing particular behaviors ("if I do
barrier would hinder or disrupt one's career progress may be this, what will happen?"). In an example intended to
confounding perceptions of the barrier with the individual's illustrate the differing effects of self-efficacy and outcome
confidence in his or her ability to cope with it. Although this expectations, Lent et al. (1994) had suggested that a person
confound is apparent in the CBFs "hindrance" format with high self-efficacy for mathematics might choose to
(Swanson et al., 1996), it is also likely to be a consideration, avoid science-intensive career fields "if she or he anticipates
albeit more subtle, in barrier "likelihood" formats negative outcomes (e.g., non-support of significant others,
(McWhirter, 1997) or, for that matter, in thought-listing or work/family conflict) to attend such options" (p. 84).
interview assessments (e.g., Luzzo, 1993; Lent et al., 1998). Swanson et al. (1996) observed that the examples of
This critique suggests that it may be difficult to disen- negative outcome expectations we had used resembled
tangle barrier perceptions from coping efficacy beliefs. One
certain barrier scales on the CBI. They further suggested that
possible solution is to develop separate measures of coping
our example implies that "barriers either influence one's
efficacy, for use along with barrier perception measures.
outcome expectations or may be considered as synonymous
Examining the effects of barrier perceptions on career choice
with outcome expectations" (p. 239).
or implementation, while controlling for coping efficacy,
might offer a clearer understanding of barrier perception- We think that Swanson et al.'s (1996) argument is very
criterion relations. It is noteworthy that McWhirter (1997) well-taken. In essence, there is a need to clarify the nature of
developed a generalized measure of coping efficacy as part the relationship between barriers and outcome expectations.
of her Perception of Barriers instrument, finding that this Are they merely different names for the same latent con-
measure was negatively related to barrier perceptions. struct? Or are they different, with one influencing the other?
McWhirter and Luzzo (1996) also developed a Coping With We return to these questions in a later section, but offer a
Barriers (coping efficacy) scale. However, research has yet brief preview of our response here: Barriers may usefully be
to examine the potentially complex relations among barrier conceived and operationalized as a particular form of
perceptions and coping efficacy beliefs relative to particular outcome expectation related to one's perception of the
choice outcomes (cf. Albert & Luzzo, 1999). environment.42 LENT, BROWN, AND HACKETT
Career Supports: A Missing Environmental Ingredient (e.g., identifying role models or funding sources in one's
existing support system), or (b) to shift from, or alter, their
From an SCCT perspective, one class of variables has environments in order to access currently unavailable re-
received far less study than it deserves within research on sources (e.g., developing new peer support systems). This
contextual influences on career behavior: environmentally change in perspective, from deficits (barriers) to assets
supportive conditions or resources. Supports or support (supports), is consistent with the long-held intervention
systems are conceived within SCCT as environmental philosophy of counseling psychology (Super, 1955).
variables that can facilitate the formation and pursuit of Study of contextual supports would add a few new
individuals' career choices. Such supportive or enabling theoretical conundrums, such as the question of how sup-
environmental conditions have long been recognized in the ports and barriers interrelate. Betz's (1989) important trea-
career development literature (e.g., Tinsley & Faunce, tise on the "null environment" implies that support is not
1980), but have not often captured sustained research simply the absence of barriers, or leaving the individual
attention. alone. In other words, support is not a neutral condition;
Several recent studies have examined the role of per- rather, it involves factors that actively promote career
ceived support variables relative to a variety of career and behavior. Thus, one might infer that supports and barriers
academic outcomes. For example, rural adolescents' percep- represent largely unique constructs. For example, an indi-
tions of parental support for pursuing certain Holland theme vidual may recognize distinct barriers (e.g., family disap-
fields were predictive of their interest, self-efficacy, and proval, limited savings) and supports (e.g., peer approval,
valuing of these fields (Lapan, Hinkelman, Adams, & access to scholarship funding) relative to a given choice
Turner, in press). Perceived support from fathers was found option. Alternatively, one might contend that support and
to relate to the educational plans and career expectations of barrier perceptions are inversely related or reflect opposite
Mexican American high school girls (McWhirter, Hackett, poles on a positive-negative continuum.
et al., 1998). Faculty support or encouragement has been
Although there is little research in the career literature
associated with engineering students' academic performance
addressing this issue, one recent interview study found that
(Hackett, Betz, Casas, & Rocha-Singh, 1992) and persis-
college students listed somewhat different, yet overlapping
tence (Schaefers et al., 1997). Supportive influences from
categories of supportive and hindering influences on their
teachers, parents, and friends were found to relate to
choice behavior (Lent et al., 1998). For example, 68% of
self-reported positive academic experiences in high school
respondents listed financial concerns as a barrier, whereas
(Fisher & Stafford, 1999). Several qualitative-interview
20% listed financial resources as a support. Access to social
studies have also explored career support dimensions in
support and to role models were reported as supportive
adult workers (Blustein, Phillips, Jobin-Davis, Finkelberg,
influences by 87% and 33%, respectively, of the sample.
& Roarke, 1997; Richie et al., 1997).
Absence of support or role models were not specifically
This important group of studies notwithstanding, it is mentioned as barriers, but 42% of participants cited negative
understandable that contextual career support mechanisms social or family influences as a hindering factor. Clearly,
have been underexplored relative to barriers. Interest in more research is needed on the dimensionality of, and nature
barriers stemmed largely from a desire to explain factors that of the relationship between, perceived supports and barriers.
stymie women's career development. Because the issues
were framed in terms of roadblocks to the pursuit of
particular career options or to the realization of personal Prevalence and Impact of Barrier Perceptions
potential, it made sense to focus on barriers. Yet such a
barrier-focused purview may have also constricted research The study of career barriers raises at least two fundamen-
on contextual effects. If one is interested in restoring tal questions: Do people, in fact, perceive particular barriers
previously blocked or discarded options, it also seems to their career progress? Assuming that they do, to what
essential to study those aspects of the environment—and of extent does the presence of these barriers relate to, or afreet,
the individual's appraisal of, and response to, the environ- their choice behavior or other important outcomes?
ment—that can facilitate career choice and development. Our reading of this small but growing literature leads us to
Hence, complementing the focus on barriers, one might pose concur with the assertion that "college students clearly do
such questions as, what contextual conditions support perceive the existence of barriers" (Swanson & Woitke,
women's choice of nontraditional careers? What conditions 1997, p. 441). Likewise, high school students (males and
enable members of particular racial-ethnic minority groups females of different racial-ethnic groups) have been found
to pursue certain major or career options in the face of to perceive barriers to their future college attendance and
deterring conditions? work lives (McWhirter, 1997; McWhirter, Hackett, et al.,
Answers to such questions may have useful implications 1998), young adults have reported barriers in making the
for counseling and preventive interventions. For example, transition from school to work (Blustein et al., 1997), and
although a focus on barriers suggests the design of barrier- highly achieving women have cited barriers to their career
coping strategies (Brown & Lent, 1996), a spotlight on progress (Richie et al., 1997). Such barrier perceptions are
facilitative conditions would suggest complementary, sup- apparent across diverse assessment formats, such as thought-
port-enhancing efforts, such as helping individuals (a) to listing (Luzzo, 1993, 1995, 1996; Swanson & Tokar, 1991a),
marshall the contextual assets that are available to them interviews (Lent et al., 1998), and ratings on structuredSOCIAL COGNITIVE CAREER THEORY 43
barriers inventories (McWhirter, 1997; Swanson et ai., development. This interpretation, derived from attribution
1996). theory (Weiner, 1986), recalls our earlier discussion of
The evidence suggests that various groups do perceive coping efficacy. Indeed, there appear to be some conceptual
career barriers; however, it also raises some questions about similarities between the internal-controllable attributional
the prevalence and magnitude of barrier effects, at least in style and coping efficacy—though a key difference is that
high school and college students. Swanson and Woitke the former is viewed as traitlike, whereas the latter is seen as
(1997) noted that there are substantial individual differences a context-specific construct.
in how barriers are perceived. Indeed, qualitative assessment
methods reveal that certain barriers (e.g., financial) are
reported by many persons, whereas others are perceived by Summary
relatively few (e.g.. Lent et al., 1998; Luzzo, 1993; Swanson
& Tokar, 1991a). Such methods also suggest that there is The foregoing review of the career barriers literature
considerable variation in how many total barriers partici- presents a mixed picture. On the one hand, students and
pants list, although some findings suggest that most partici- workers do perceive barriers to their career progress; but on
pants report relatively few barriers. For example, Luzzo and the other hand, barrier ratings are often found to be
Hutcheson (1996) found that most of their participants listed somewhat modest in size and have not been shown to be
fewer than two past or anticipated barriers. consistently related to important career outcome or process
variables in the mostly student samples in which they have
Research employing structured barriers questionnaires been studied. This is not to say that barriers are not
suggests that although some students use the full scale range, consequential for many Individuals. Indeed, they are likely
obtained mean ratings are generally fairly modest, suggest- to be especially salient for those who have been victimized
ing that most participants view most potential barriers as by various forms of oppression. However, several concep-
either not terribly likely to be encountered or to pose a threat, tual and methodological issues—such as the manner in
if encountered (McWhirter, 1997; Swanson etal., 1996). Not which barriers have been defined, failure to consider the
surprisingly, racial-ethnic and male-female differences have context and temporal specificity of barriers, noncorrespon-
emerged with respect to the rating of certain barriers (e.g., dence between barriers and outcome criteria (in terms of
sex and racial discrimination; see Swanson et al., 1996) or in content and developmental task), infrequent attention to
total numbers of barriers perceived (McWhirter & Luzzo, mediating and moderating variables, understudy of nonstu-
1996). However, the magnitude of intergroup differences dent samples, and use of designs that do not explore
has frequently been smaller than expected, and differences potential causal effects of barriers—may have partly ob-
have not always been in the expected direction (McWhirter, scured the impact of perceived barriers and the mechanisms
1997; McWhirter & Luzzo, 1996; Swanson et al., 1996). through which they affect career behavior.
Studies exploring the relations of perceived barriers to Despite these considerations, recent career barriers re-
other career variables have produced somewhat mixed search has constructed an important conceptual and method-
findings. For example, Swanson et al. (1996) reported that ological foundation for further inquiry, and the program-
CBI scales were relatively unrelated to variables such as matic research of Swanson, McWhirter, and Luzzo and their
career indecision and vocational identity in college students, colleagues has been particularly pivotal. In the remainder of
although there was some evidence that gender moderated this article, we attempt to build on this foundation, offering a
CBI-criterion relations (e.g., higher CBI-indecision correla- modest set of suggestions for future research on career
tions were found for men than for women). McWhirter, barriers and their conceptual partner, career supports. These
Hackett, et al. (1998) found that barrier perceptions did not suggestions are premised on the need to clarify or elaborate
explain significant variance in high school students' educa- certain aspects of SCCT having relevance for the conceptu-
tional plans or career expectations. Other studies have found alization and assessment of contextual variables.
few or minimal statistical relations between career barriers
and measures of career attitudes (Luzzo, 1996; Luzzo &
Hutcheson, 1996) or job satisfaction (Blustein et al., 1997).
However, Luzzo (1996, 1998) found significant, negative Extending SCCT's View of the Environment
relations between future barrier perceptions and career Citing a "lack of clarity and cohesiveness" in previous
decision-making self-efficacy. conceptual and empirical approaches to career barriers,
Luzzo and Hutcheson (1996) also reported that barrier- Swanson et al. (1996) asserted that future barrier research
criterion relations may be moderated by certain attributional might profit from "the application of an appropriate theoreti-
style variables: students who saw career decision-making as cal framework" (p. 221). In particular, they suggested that a
an externally caused and uncontrollable process exhibited theory-based approach might help to (a) identify "back-
significant, negative correlations between future barrier ground factors and mechanisms" affecting the development
perceptions and career maturity; however, those with an of barrier perceptions, (b) offer hypotheses about barrier
internal, controllable attributional style did not show such a effects, and (c) organize and integrate research findings.
pattern. The authors suggested that persons who feel in Swanson and Woitke (1997) also noted that a theoretical
control of career decisional tasks are more likely to believe framework could assist in the design of barrier-coping
they can surmount occupational barriers; hence, their percep- interventions. SCCT was cited as a "particularly promising
tion of barriers is less likely to be disruptive to their career model for understanding career-related barriers" by Swan-44 LENT, BROWN, AND HACKETT
son et al. (1996, p. 221), who sketched several ways in choices, typically realize that long-term payoffs may entail
which the theory may be adapted to the study of barriers. short-term sacrifices. Envisioning the career choice process
We agree with Swanson et al.'s (1996; Swanson & as a path leading to a given destination, it may be useful to
Woitke, 1997) points about the value in taking a theory- distinguish between (a) the distal future outcomes that
based approach to the study of barriers, and are pleased that people expect to receive upon attaining a particular career
they saw SCCT as relevant to this challenge. At the same (i.e., the ultimate payoffs that presumably help orient them
time, their commentary and our own critique of the barriers toward this destination to begin with) and (b) the more
literature suggests that several aspects of SCCT are ripe for proximal outcomes or conditions that they expect to encoun-
theoretical clarification or expansion. In this section, we ter in their pursuit of this option (i.e., the hurdles and
offer some recent thoughts about how SCCT might be supports that line the path toward their destination).
further extended to the study of contextual effects on career Beliefs about proximal outcomes comprise a specific type
choice behavior. In particular, we (a) revisit the relation of of outcome expectation that might be termed "process
barriers and supports to outcome expectations, (b) consider expectations" because they include the sorts of supports and
various ecological layers within which individuals' career barriers that people envision encountering while in the
behavior is embedded, (c) suggest several possible roles for process of pursuing a particular course of action (i.e.,
coping efficacy relative to barrier perceptions, and (d) proximal to the career decision-making process). These
ponder the phenomenological lenses through which people process expectations are, one might expect, related to yet
interpret particular environmental elements as barriers or distinct from the sort of larger payoffs (or distal outcome
supports. expectations) that incline people toward a particular goal.
For example, a person might wish to become a physician
partly because he or she is attracted by the prestige and
Process Expectations and the Proximal Environment opportunity to help others that this option is perceived as
offering. These anticipated payoffs constitute ultimate, distal
Earlier, we discussed Swanson et al.'s (1996) observation
outcome expectations. However, the individual's willing-
about the conceptual overlap between perceived barriers and
ness to embark on this path will, presumably, also be
outcome expectations. In particular, they had noted that
affected by the contextual conditions that he or she expects
barriers seem to represent negative outcome expectations
to encounter enroute (e.g., "will I have enough financial or
(e.g., a person's beliefs about receiving adverse outcomes
family support to make it through medical school?").
from the environment contingent on performing particular
career-related actions). Indeed, the apparent relationship We think this proximal-process versus distal-outcome
between barriers and outcome expectations deserves further distinction is potentially important for several reasons. In
comment, which we hope may clarify the nature of the particular, it acknowledges that people do not simply pursue
outcome expectations construct and offer some useful impli- a career because of its ultimately foreseen payoffs. Rather,
cations for conceptualizing and assessing barrier (and sup- they also consider the conditions they are likely to face in its
port) perceptions. pursuit (e.g., "medical school will be impossibly hard on my
Bandura (1986) distinguished several classes of outcome relationships and my bank account"), among other impor-
expectations, such as the anticipation that certain physical tant factors, like self-efficacy regarding the occupation's
(e.g., monetary), social (e.g., approval of significant others), requisite skills. Thus, two individuals with similar distal
or self-evaluative (e.g., self-satisfaction) outcomes will outcome expectations regarding a career in medicine may
follow particular actions. These expected positive outcomes hold quite different process expectations about the proximal
operate as potent motivators that, along with other variables barriers and supports they would encounter in pursuing this
(e.g., self-efficacy), help to determine whether people will goal.
undertake certain actions. Naturally, however, not all out- Another reason for identifying process expectations as a
come expectations are positive. People may well expect particular form of outcome expectation is that they offer a
that pursuit of a given course of action will produce either unique way to conceptualize and assess the psychological
neutral or negative outcomes, making them less likely to environment surrounding the career decision-making pro-
choose such activities. Outcome expectations may thus be cess. That is, temporally proximal supports and barriers can
classified along several dimensions, such as their valence be recast as process expectations about what will happen
(positivity vs. negativity), locus (self-administrated versus socially, financially, and so forth, in the near term if one
other-administered outcomes), or relative importance to the chooses to pursue a particular career path. This recasting
individual. will, hopefully, help to clarify the conceptual relations
For the purposes of clarifying SCCT's conception of between perceived barriers and outcome expectations (cf.
barriers, it may also be useful to add consideration of a Swanson et al., 1996) and also suggest some new research
temporal dimension along which outcome expectations may questions, such as whether proximal-process expectations
vary. In particular, outcome expectations generally reflect are empirically distinct from distal-outcome expectations.
beliefs about a future state of affairs linked to one's taking We are currently studying these process expectations to
certain prospective actions—but some consequences may be see if they, in fact, are different from distal outcome
expected over the short run (i.e., proximally), whereas others expectations and how they fare as indexes of the proximal
may be anticipated in the more distal future. Adolescents and environment in tests of SCCT's contextual hypotheses. In an
adults facing complex life decisions, such as career-related initial qualitative study, Lent et al. (1998) found thatSOCIAL COGNITIVE CAREER THEORY 45
participants often cited factors such as anticipated working
conditions and reinforcers (i.e., distal-outcome expecta-
tions) as reasons for selecting a particular career option; they
also cited the absence of such favorable conditions, or the
presence of negative ones, as bases for rejecting options they
had previously considered. However, when asked about
what had supported and hindered pursuit of their chosen Immediate,
option (i.e., proximal-process supports and barriers), they Proximal Context
generally mentioned such factors as their current financial
conditions and the responses of persons in their immediate
social support systems.
In another recent study, Lent et al. (1999) administered
structured measures of outcome and process expectations to
college students. These measures were linked to beliefs
about the outcomes (near term versus long term) that could
accrue from majoring in a math or science-related field. The
outcome expectations measure included positively and nega-
tively valenced distal outcomes, such as, "getting a degree
in a math or science-related field would allow me to earn a
good salary." The process expectations measure contained
positive/support and negative/barrier contextual conditions
that students expected to encounter while in college (e.g.,
"receive negative comments or discouragement about your Figure 3. A concentric model of environmental layers that
major from family members"). Preliminary findings indi- surround the person and form the context for his or her career
cate that the outcome and process variables represent behavior. Copyright 1998 by R. W. Lent, S. D. Brown, and G.
relatively distinct sets of expectations. In combination with Hackett. Printed with permission.
the findings of our qualitative study, these results also
suggest, albeit tentatively, that distal-outcome expectations
and proximal barrier/support perceptions may play some- consisting of only two surrounding environmental layers;
what different roles in the career choice process. more complex models contain additional ecological struc-
tures, such as microsystems, mesosystems, exosystems, and
Parenthetically, it seems important to note that not all macrosystems (Vondracek et al., 1986).
process expectations relate to the environment: Just as Individuals are invariably affected by aspects of the
anticipated self-evaluation (e.g., self-satisfaction accruing objective and perceived larger environment (i.e., the societal
from the ultimate achievement of one's goal) constitutes a layer). For example, they observe the demographic features
key type of distal-outcome expectation, self-evaluative of people who are employed in different occupations and
process expectations may also be an influential source of learn vicariously about other people's experiences with
motivation, apart from the barriers and supports one imag- particular barriers. However, individuals are likely to differ-
ines encountering in the environment. For instance, an entiate beliefs about whether certain barriers exist in society
individual may expect to derive a great deal of self- generally from their beliefs about how such barriers will
satisfaction from attaining proximal subgoals that lead to affect the self, should they be encountered directly. It is one
one's ultimate goal (e.g., being accepted to medical school thing to know, for example, that racism exists "out there"
enroute to becoming a physician) or from performing well at and another to anticipate how one will deal with it personally
short-range milestones, such as particular courses. Such (K. A. Gainor, personal communication, July 29,1998).
intermediate, self-evaluative expectations help to sustain
one along the arduous path toward one's long-term goals Certain features of the inner layer of the environment
(e.g., career entry). (e.g., one's immediate circle of significant others, interac-
tions with mentors) may both serve as a filter that distills
perceptions of structural barriers in the larger environment
A Concentric Model of Environmental Influences and a source of information about how one might cope with
such barriers. For example, a young Black woman may
Another potentially useful way to conceive of the environ- perceive that racial and gender bias pose formidable ob-
ment is as a series of embedded layers, or concentric circles stacles to Black women's pursuit of careers in engineering,
(see Figure 3). The person can be envisioned as residing in yet her access to potent role models, adequate financial
the innermost circle, surrounded by his or her immediate resources, and significant others who share her dream may
environment (e.g., family, friends, financial condition), help her to persist despite the expectation of encountering
which is, in turn, encircled by the larger societal context such bias.
(e.g., institutionalized racism and macroeconomic condi- This potential buffering (or hampering) role of the inner
tions). This conception of people as embedded within a environmental layer relative to career choice behavior is
multilayered environment draws on developmental-contex- speculative but deserves empirical scrutiny. In Lent et al.'s
tualist models. Figure 3 portrays a simplified version (1998) interview study, participants were most likely to citeYou can also read
