Investigating multiple subtypes of career indecision through cluster analysis.

Abstract

Many studies have focused on the differences between decided and undecideds students. Moreover, researchers have also related career indecision to a host of personality variables. The primary purpose of this study was to examine and to describe possible subtypes of undecideds through cluster analysis. Eighty-seven undecided and 26 decided students were individually interviewed and completed four instruments on career planning and problem solving. Compared with previous research, this study used more stringent criteria in selecting the undecided students. Also in contrast with previous research, an initial analysis indicated that the decided and undecided students differed on a broad range of career-planning variables. The cluster analysis revealed four distinct subtypes of undecided students, (a) planless avoiders, (b) informed indecisives, (c) confident but uninformed, and (d) uninformed. We discuss the results in terms of previous research, implications for intervention strategies, and methodological issues.

The role of ambiguity tolerance in career decision making

“…This challenged the rational choice theory, which only emphasizes the information gathering and processing but ignores the inevitable information unavailability Ambiguity Tolerance in Career Decision Making 6 and inconsistency. The cluster analytic literature has also identified a group of informed indecisive individuals (Larson, 1988). They were well informed but still reported high ambiguity in their decision-making, suggesting that ambiguity cannot be eliminated simply through getting more information but needs another coping process for a better adaptation.…”

Psychological Separation and Dimensions of Career Indecision in Secondary School Students

“…Most of the research which sought to analyze the relationship between systemic family variables and career indecision assumed that the latter is a unidimensional construct. However, an increasing number of authors have proposed that undecided individuals do not represent a group of homogenous characteristics and that career indecision should be conceptualized as a multidimensional construct (Betz, 1992;Callanan & Greenhaus, 1992;Chartrand & Camp, 1991;Fuqua, Blum, & Hartman, 1988;Holland & Holland, 1977;Larson, Heppner, Ham, & Dugan, 1988;Lucas & Epperson, 1988Rojewsky, 1994;Savickas & Jarjoura, 1991;Sepich, 1987;Wanberg & Muchinsky, 1992). This evolution is reflected in the emergence of second-generation instruments (see Savickas, 1992) which evaluate different dimensions of career indecision, such as the Career Decision Profile (CDP; Jones, 1989) or the Career Factors Inventory (CFI; Chartrand, Robbins, Morril, & Boggs, 1990).…”

Indécision et adaptation à l’université

“…À côté de l'état idéal de décision, deux autres états sont possibles : le premier est normal, c'est l'état de non décision, celui d'une personne qui examine diverses options mais qui est encore incapable de formuler un choix préférentiel et qui peut, ou non, ressentir une dissonance entre son état actuel et l'état souhaitable de décision. Le second état s'enracinerait dans un trouble fondamental de la personnalité (Holland & Holland, 1977), qui pourrait prendre la forme de démarches de coping inadaptées (Larson et al, 1988), découler du recours à des règles métacognitives erronées comme la surestimation de probabilités négligeables, ou tenir à des attentes irrationnelles comme la croyance de la personne qu'une et une seule profession peut la satisfaire (Peterson et al, 1991).…”