14
Journal of Vocational Behavior 24, 1-14 (1984) Meaning and Career Decision-Making DAN ZAKAY AND AZY BARAK Tel-Aviv University A model of decision-making is suggested as a potential tool for assisting people in the process of career decision-making. The model is based on the subjective meaning of the values involved in the decision. Two experiments were carried out. In the first, university students had to decide on their major. In the second experiment, ninth-grade pupils had to decide about their future high school studies. Both decisions were actual ones. The suggested model was found to have high predictive power regarding the actual choices made. The possible applications of the model as a counseling tool are discussed. The process of career development and choice may be seen as a sequence of a number of decisions made by the individual. These decisions can be viewed as links in a chain (Osipow, 1973),where each link represents choices among alternatives. The choices may refer to different contexts- a choice of a certain high school, the selection of a course of study or a specific curriculum, the choice of a college, a major, or a job. These examples represent major decisions, but minor ones (such as if, when where, or with whom to study for an examination) are also part of the chain. Thus, decision-making is a lifelong process, with only the contents of the decisions varying along with the development of the individual (Tiedeman, 1961). The decision-making framework of career-related decisions is similar to the general concept of decision making, and includes seven main stages: (1) defining the problem; (2) generating alternatives; (3) gathering information; (4) processing information; (5) making plans; (6) selecting goals; (7) implementing plans (Bergland, 1974; Herr & Cramer, 1979; Pietrofesa & Splete, 1975; Zunker, 1981). It is important to note that the whole process is one of problem solving rather than of decision-making, which refers mainly to a more limited view and includes only some of the above-mentioned stages. The present study does not deal directly with the stages of problem definition or generation of alternatives, and, The authors wish to thank Dina DiI and Shulamit Shamay for their assistance in conducting the experiments. Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Dan Zakay, Department of Psychology, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel. OOOI-8791/84 $3.00 Copyright 0 1984 by Academic Press. Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

Meaning and career decision-making

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Meaning and career decision-making

Journal of Vocational Behavior 24, 1-14 (1984)

Meaning and Career Decision-Making

DAN ZAKAY AND AZY BARAK

Tel-Aviv University

A model of decision-making is suggested as a potential tool for assisting people in the process of career decision-making. The model is based on the subjective meaning of the values involved in the decision. Two experiments were carried out. In the first, university students had to decide on their major. In the second experiment, ninth-grade pupils had to decide about their future high school studies. Both decisions were actual ones. The suggested model was found to have high predictive power regarding the actual choices made. The possible applications of the model as a counseling tool are discussed.

The process of career development and choice may be seen as a sequence of a number of decisions made by the individual. These decisions can be viewed as links in a chain (Osipow, 1973), where each link represents choices among alternatives. The choices may refer to different contexts- a choice of a certain high school, the selection of a course of study or a specific curriculum, the choice of a college, a major, or a job. These examples represent major decisions, but minor ones (such as if, when where, or with whom to study for an examination) are also part of the chain. Thus, decision-making is a lifelong process, with only the contents of the decisions varying along with the development of the individual (Tiedeman, 1961).

The decision-making framework of career-related decisions is similar to the general concept of decision making, and includes seven main stages: (1) defining the problem; (2) generating alternatives; (3) gathering information; (4) processing information; (5) making plans; (6) selecting goals; (7) implementing plans (Bergland, 1974; Herr & Cramer, 1979; Pietrofesa & Splete, 1975; Zunker, 1981). It is important to note that the whole process is one of problem solving rather than of decision-making, which refers mainly to a more limited view and includes only some of the above-mentioned stages. The present study does not deal directly with the stages of problem definition or generation of alternatives, and,

The authors wish to thank Dina DiI and Shulamit Shamay for their assistance in conducting the experiments. Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Dan Zakay, Department of Psychology, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel.

OOOI-8791/84 $3.00 Copyright 0 1984 by Academic Press. Inc.

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

Page 2: Meaning and career decision-making

2 ZAKAY AND BARAK

hence, it is more appropriate to look upon the suggested model as falling in the domain of decision-making models.

However, in implementing this framework to specific models of career decisions, researchers have varied in underscoring different elements, factors, or processes in their models. Hilton (1962), Hilton, Baenninger, and Korn (1962), as well as Hershenson and Roth (1966), for instance, emphasized the role of cognitive dissonance in their career decision- making model. Gelatt (1962) put a heavy emphasis on the developmental and continuous nature of the decision-making process in his “increasing approximation” paradigm. Sherlock and Cohen (1966) postulated that the essential factors in making career-related decisions were rewards of given occupations and access to them. Ziller (1957) and Morris (1966) emphasized the role of the risk-taking factor in their models. The elements of values and values clarification are central in the theoretical model of Katz (1966) and in the instructional technique suggested by Gelatt, Varenhorst, and Corey (1972). Finally, specific emphasis on subjective probabilities for success and utility estimates is given by Marshall (1967), Gelatt and Clark (1967), Kaldor and Zytowski (1969), and Thoresen and Mehrens (1967).

Although practitioners have been increasingly interested in implementing decision-making counseling techniques, there are questions which have been raised regarding the counseling method so as to make it a meaningful intervention within the limitations of both time restrictions and the client’s uncertain commitment (Zunker, 1981), and the role of unpredictable events in the individual’s life on his/her career development (Calia, 1966).

It was suggested (Wooler, 1981) that advances in decision theory, especially in Multi-Attribute Utility Theory and in the emergent theory of decision structuring, have cleared the way for decision-theory-based techniques in order to make significant contributions to career counseling. These contributions focus on helping the client clarify the problem and assisting the counselor in quickly identifying sources of the client’s anxiety and conflict. This view is supported by Mitchell and Beach (1976), Pitz and Harren (1979), and Jungerman (1980).

It seems necessary, however, at this point to take into account recent developments in the field of behavioral decision making, i.e., human cognitive limitations and biases (Kahneman, Slavic, & Tversky, 1982; Nisbett & Ross, 1980) and Einhom’s (1970) finding that people probably use different decision-making strategies in coping with different tasks. This same argument is stated by Tversky and Sattath (1979) who conclude that “individual choice behavior is variable, complex, and context de- pendent” (p. 565).

Decision-making processes might be classified as either compensatory models (e.g., Zeleny, 1976) or noncompensatory models (e.g., Tversky, 1972). A compensatory process is a composition model in which the

Page 3: Meaning and career decision-making

MEANING AND CAREER DECISION-MAKING 3

overall utility of an alternative is an additive combination of the utilities of its attributes (Wilkie & Pessemier, 1973). On the other hand, a non- compensatory process is nonlinear, like a lexicographic model, according to which at every stage of the decision process the most important attribute is selected from those included in the available alternatives, and its selection eliminates all of the alternatives that do not include the selected attribute, with the process continuing until one single alternative remains. Thus the overall utility of an alternative might be equal to the utility of one or only a few of the utilities of its attributes (Einhorn, 1970). Einhorn concludes that in many situations, nonlinear, noncom- pensatory decision strategies may be simpler, cognitively, than linear strategies and hence such strategies might be preferred by decision makers. This preference is even stronger under conditions of stress (e.g., Wright, 1974; Zakay, Note 1) or in face of conflict (Slavic, 1975). The threat posed by the use of noncompensatory decision strategies stems from the fact that from a rational point of view, noncompensatory decisions might be inferior to compensatory ones, as noted by Tversky (1972). It therefore seems essential to design a decision-making counseling method that will lead the decision-maker toward the use of a linear compensatory strategy. The aim of the present study was to empirically test such a model.

The model suggested here is a compensatory Multi-Attribute Utility Model based on the notion of preference as a function of the psychological distance of the offered alternatives from some “ideal” point or “ideal” alternative. This notion characterizes a class of decision-making models, one of which is Zeleny’s (1976) ADAM. In this model the axiom of choice is: “Alternatives that are closer to the anchor are preferred to those that are farther away. To be as close as possible to the perceived anchor point is the rationale of human choice” (Zeleny, 1976, p. 18).

Restle (1961) introduced a noncompensatory model with a rationale similar to that of Zeleny. According to this model, the individual compares the immediate situation with several “ideal” situations. Each of these ideal situations has a specific response associated with it, The final response chosen is the one associated with the ideal situation which is most similar to the situation at hand. However, Restle’s model rests on a noncom- pensatory decision rule. Mitchell (1975) introduced a career decision- making model based on Restle’s model. He suggested the following steps for testing the model: (1) Determining which career alternatives are to be examined; (2) determining which characteristics of career alternatives are salient to the choices of a given group of subjects; (3) asking subjects to check which careers they perceive as possessing the characteristics listed; (4) having subjects indicate whether they personally regard each characteristic as desirable or undesirable; (5) asking subjects to make magnitude estimations of the importance that each characteristic had for him or her (Mitchell, 1975, pp. 327-328). Mitchell’s model, however,

Page 4: Meaning and career decision-making

4 ZAKAYANDBARAK

does not specify how the situation at hand is related to the final response, and it has not been tested empirically.

The model introduced here is based on Zeleny’s (1976) axiom of choice, but it also introduces some new concepts: The decision process is based on the subjective meaning representation of the decision situation of each decision maker. It is suggested that the “ideal” alternative and the offered alternatives are represented in memory as sets of attributes which cor- respond to the idiosyncratic meaning of that alternative (Kreitler & Kreitler, 1968, 1982). That idiosyncratic meaning represents the nature of the alternatives as well as the personality and cultural background of each decision maker, and is determined within the context of the behaivoral situation in which, and for the sake of which, the system of meaning is put into action (Kreitler & Kreitler, 1976). The “ideal” alternative, which according to Restle (1961) is “a hypothetical stimulus which the S would prefer to all other stimuli” (p. 81), is also considered to be a meaning representation composed of the same attributes as those by which the actual alternatives are perceived by the decision maker. In many empirical studies, it was found (e.g., Kreitler & Kreitler, 1976, 1981) that behavior was well predicted on the basis of the subjective meaning by which a specific situation was perceived by a specific actor. The same should be true for a client facing a career-type conflict. Only by taking into account his/her subjective way of perceiving the situations (the career alternatives, etc.) will his/her conflict be fully understood. Hence, the “ideal” alternative, the dimensions by which the actual alternatives are perceived, as well as its importance weights, should be defined for each client subjectively.

According to this “meaning” model, an “ideal” alternative (IA) is formed in a decision situation, representing the best choice for a specific decision-maker in a specific situation. It is not necessary for an IA to be one of the actual alternatives. The IA is represented in the cognitive system as a meaning vector with meaning values (e.g., red) and an importance weight assigned to each meaning dimension (e.g., color). The meaning vectors of all the offered alternatives are formed along the same meaning dimensions as those composing the IA and are stored in memory. The psychological distances between the meaning vectors of IA and of each offered alternative are “calculated” and the alternative which has the smallest distance is the one chosen. It is assumed that such a decision process is reasonable in all situations where the decision-maker is not under time stress, where he/she is dealing with a relevant and important topic, and is able to decompose the alternatives to their meaning dimensions.

While the meaning model introduced here has potential implications for the process of counseling itself, the purpose of the present investigation was to test its utility as a prescriptive career decision-making model, i.e., to prove that clients guided by it actually use the model. This would seem to be an important stage in the development of a counseling model.

Page 5: Meaning and career decision-making

MEANING AND CAREER DECISION-MAKING 5

Note that it is not claimed here that under all conditions will decision- makers use that “meaning’‘-type strategy which represents only one possible strategy used by some people under appropriate conditions; rather the claim is that it is possible to guide people towards the use of “meaning’‘-type process, thereby facilitating the acceptance of rational decisions. The two studies discussed below were designed to test the suggested model in two different actual choice situations. The following hypotheses were examined: While using the “meaning” counseling model (a) the alternative chosen by an individual will be the closest one to his/ her “ideal” alternative; (b) the greater the distance, “d”, between the closest alternative to the “ideal” alternative and the “ideal” alternative itself, the higher the level of the individual’s indecisiveness, i.e., there will be a positive correlation between the indecisiveness level on the one hand and “d” on the other hand; (c) the smaller the “d”, the higher the level of individual choice confidence, i.e., there will be a negative correlation between choice confidence level on the one hand and “d” on the other hand.

STUDY 1

Method

Subjects

Forty students who came to Tel-Aviv University counseling services for help with choosing their major participated in the research. The subjects ranged in age from 21 to 28 years.

Instruments

In order to test the hypotheses, the following four parameters had to be defined: Each subject’s “ideal” alternative regarding college major; relevant alternatives; the extent of indecisiveness; and the degree of postdecisional confidence.

Measurement of the “ideal” alternative. The “ideal” alternative was defined through a process whereby the subject detailed the meaning dimensions of his/her ideal study major according to the method developed by Kreitler and Kreitler (1968, 1982). The subject was instructed to imagine his/her ideal major. This major was one which, should he/she study it, would satisfy him/her completely. The subject was asked to communicate the meaning of this ideal major through the use of dimensions such as chances of finding work, difficulty of studies, etc. The subject was allowed to choose from a list of dimensions which were found to be relevant in a pilot study conducted on a similar population of university students, but was encouraged as well to generate his/her own dimensions. After completing the list of dimensions, the subject was asked to rank them in order of subjective importance, and then to assign an exact importance weight to each dimension on a scale of 0 to 10. This was

Page 6: Meaning and career decision-making

6 ZAKAYANDBARAK

accomplished while taking into account the relationship of each dimension to the others, and equal weights were allowed. Hence, the expression of possible interactions between the specific dimensions was allowed which, according to Zeleny (1976), must be taken into account. Only the 10 most important dimensions were selected for the decision-making process, as suggested in previous research (e.g., Hansen, 1969; Myers & Mark, 1968). For each of these 10 dimensions the subject was asked to determine its exact “anchor value” on a scale individually designed for each dimension. For instance, if the dimension was “the extent of math needed in a major,” the subject was asked to determine how much math he/she would ideally like to be required to use. The result of this entire process was a description of the “ideal” alternative as a set of “anchor values” along 10 dimensions, where every dimension had a specific importance weight.

Measurement of actual alternatives. The subjective descriptions of the actual alternatives among which the subject was vacillating were obtained in the following manner: The subject was asked to list all of the majors which he/she was considering for study. Using the list of dimensions which he/she had previously used for describing his/her “ideal” alternative, the subject was asked to supply values on every dimension for each one of his/her actual alternatives as he/she perceived them. The result of this process was, again, a set of values along the 10 “ideal” dimensions, for every one of the actual alternatives. The difference between these sets of actual alternatives and the equivalent set for the “ideal” alternative was only in the values. An example of the data obtained through the process described above is presented in Table 1. In this table the “decision space” of one subject is presented. The “decision space” is composed of the meaning representations of the “ideal” and the offered alternatives and of the meaning dimensions’ importance weights.

Measurement of indecisiveness level. Each subject’s degree of inde- cisiveness was measured on a scale of 10 points, where 0 indicated no indecisiveness at all and 10 indicated most indecisiveness. The subject was asked to designate the number which expressed the amount of his/ her actual indecisiveness.

Measurement of postdecisional conjidence level. Postdecisional con- fidence level was measured on a scale of 10 points, where 0 indicates lack of confidence and 10 indicated maximal confidence. The subject was asked to designate the number which expressed the amount of his/ her actual confidence in the choice just made.

Procedure

The study was carried out before the standard counseling procedure of the university counseling services. The subjects were told that this was an experiment dealing in counseling, and all agreed to participate.

Page 7: Meaning and career decision-making

zz

TABL

E 1

8 “D

ecis

ion

Spac

e”

Stru

ctur

e of

One

Sub

ject

2

Mea

ning

dim

ensi

ons

0

Leve

l of

N

umbe

r 5

Poss

ibilit

y of

O

ccup

atio

n D

iffic

ulty

of

m

athe

mat

ics

of f

riend

s fin

ding

a jo

b so

cial

sta

tus

stud

ies

need

ed

stud

ying

c E

Impo

rtanc

e w

eigh

ts (

on a

IO

-poi

nt s

cale

): 8

7 6

5 5

E

“Idea

l al

tern

ativ

e Ve

ry

high

(10

) Ve

ry

high

(10

) M

ediu

m

(7)

Med

ium

(7

) M

any

03)

E Ac

tual

al

tern

ativ

es

I. Ps

ycho

logy

M

ediu

m

(7)

Hig

h (9

) M

ediu

m

(7)

Med

ium

(7

) Fe

w

(3)

E as

per

ceiv

ed

by

II.

Soci

olog

y Lo

w

(4)

Med

ium

(7

) M

ediu

m

(7)

Low

(4

) th

e su

bjec

t M

any

(8)

III.

Eco

nom

ics

Hig

h (9

) Ve

ry

high

(10

) H

igh

(9)

Hig

h (9

) Fe

w

(3)

?

a Sc

ale

valu

es a

re g

iven

in

pare

nthe

ses.

E t:

Page 8: Meaning and career decision-making

8 ZAKAYANDBARAK

Each subject was tested individually. At the beginning of the process the subject listed all of the majors which he/she was considering for study, and his/her degree of indecisiveness was measured. This was done before the decision model was introduced and explained in order to eliminate any possible influences from knowledge of the model on the listing. Next, an explanation was given by the experimenter on the concepts of ideal alternative, importance weights, dimensions, values, and anchor values, and on the process whereby they were to be measured. This explanation was facilitated through the use of a detailed example on buying a car. The subject then completed the entire process with regard to his/her study plans. Upon completion he/she was asked to imagine that this was the critical moment for deciding his/her future study major, and to state his/her degree of confidence in that decision. At the end of the experiment each subject received feedback about the structure of his/her “decision space” to enable use of this information in the regular counseling process which followed.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The distance of each alternative from the “ideal” alternative was calculated in the following manner: The set of dimensions of each alternative was compared to the equivalent set of the “ideal” alternative on each and every dimension. In cases where both sets had identical values on a certain dimension, a value of 0 was determined for that dimension, and in cases where the sets were not identical, a value of 1 was determined. This simple dichotomy was chosen on the basis of evidence (e.g., Kahne- man et al., 1982; Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Zeleny, 1976) regarding man’s cognitive limitations and inability to perform complex information pro- cessing across many dimensions. The distance between both sets was calculated as the sum of importance weights of those dimensions in which the values were not identical. This calculation can be expressed in the formula

d12 = C Wj, j@A, nAz,

where A, n A2 is the set of dimensions whose values are identical to the corresponding “anchor values,” and Wj is the weight of dimension j, and d12 is the distance between alternatives Al and AZ. This distance function is based on Restle’s (1961) definition of the difference between two sets of aspects A,, Al,

d,2 = m(A,) + m(A,) - 244, II AJr

where m is a measure function defined over the set of aspects. By defining the measure function as a dichotomous function, that is, mi = 0 if the values of dimension j are the same in A, and AZ, m, = 1 if they are

Page 9: Meaning and career decision-making

MEANING AND CAREER DECISION-MAKING 9

different, 2m(A, n A,) becomes 0. A somewhat similar dichotomous rule is found in the Elimination-by-Aspects model (Tversky, 1972) where an aspect is chosen, and if the value in a specific alternative is not identical with the desired aspect, the whole alternative is eliminated. Of course, in the suggested model the dichotomous function is used within a com- pensatory rule of choice.

The distance of each alternative from the individual “ideal” alternative (d,) was calculated for each subject using the method described previously. Thirty-three out of forty subjects (82.5%) chose the alternative which was closest to their “ideal” alternative (x*(l) = 16.9, p < .Ol).

A Pearson correlation was computed between the level of postdecisional confidence and d, (r (38) = - .473, p < .Ol). A Pearson correlation was also computed between the amount of predecisional indecisiveness and d, (r(38) = .302 p < .OS). A third Pearson correlation was computed between the level of confidence and the level of indecisiveness (r(28) = - .705, p < .Ol).

STUDY 2

The findings of Study 1 were obtained in an experimental setting and, hence, the purpose of this study was to test the validity of the presented model in the context of real life decisions. The study was conducted some months prior to the end of the Israeli school year. At this time every ninth-grade pupil must choose the trend he/she prefers to study in high school, and he/she faces several alternatives, e.g., academic high school, vocational high school, and additional alternatives in each of the two (the specific trend and level of study, e.g., with or without matriculation certificate).

METHOD

Subjects

Forty-four pupils from four different ninth grades participated in the experiment. They ranged between 14 and 15 years of age, and there were 22 boys and 22 girls.

Procedure

The process of the experiment was identical to that used in Study 1, but here a decision had to be made twice. The first time was 2 months before the date on which the pupils had to submit their final decisions and the second time was on the final date. The car-buying example was utilized in both decisions in order to make sure that the model was well understood. No attempt was made to influence or change their decisions and no measurement was taken of their level of indecisiveness or confidence in decision, This was due to ethical reasons, since these subjects had not voluntarily applied for counseling and the experimenters did not want to raise doubts or create a lack of confidence.

Page 10: Meaning and career decision-making

10 ZAKAY AND BARAK

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The statistical analysis was based on the computation of the distances (di) between each actual alternative and the “ideal” alternative, for each subject individually. This was done in the way described in the first study. It was found that in the first choice, 36 out of 44 pupils (81.8%) chose the alternative which was closest to the “ideal” alternative (x’(1) = 8.55, p < .Ol). In the second choice, which was the final obligating choice, 35 out of 44 pupils (79.5%) chose the predicted alternative according to the tested model (x’(l) = 7.17, p < .Ol). Only 11 out of the 44 pupils (25%) changed the structure of their decision space in the elapsing time between stage 1 and 2 of the experiment. The remaining 33 pupils (75%) had a stable decision space structure (x*(l) = 5.2, p < .05).

It should be noted that since each pupil was actually considering three or four alternatives, the probability of predicting the actual choice by chance alone was l/3 or l/4. Hence, the number of predictions obtained is significantly far from chance level (as analyzed by the Poisson distribution).

DISCUSSION

The hypothesized model was subjected to two empirical tests with two different populations which had different contents of decision-making tasks. Study 1 dealt with subjects troubled by actual difficulty in making decisions, but the decisions made were only for the sake of the experiment. Study 2, however, dealt with individuals in an actual choice situation. This fact is important in light of Ebbessen and Konecni’s (1979) criticism of the external validity of imaginary choices. In both studies, the data supported the validity of the model, its utility in understanding cognitive and behavioral indecisiveness, and its potential use in modifying the decision-making process. It should be stressed that it is not claimed here that the model was found to characterize intuitive decision making, but rather that it was possible to lead subjects to use the model in a way which felt natural to them. The findings obtained in the present research are mainly relevant for the understanding of career decision-making be- havior and for the extent to which people are willing to follow a specified model. It was found that people did, indeed, follow the tested model and, hence, it is claimed that it is suitable to serve as a basis for a counseling model.

Study 1 showed how students’ indecisiveness can be “broken down” into specific elements so that the core of choice difficulty can be uncovered. The individual “decision space,” constructed by his/her ideal choice dimensions and values as opposed to his/her perceptions of other actual alternatives explained, in part, the level of individual vacillation. Also, the model was able to predict most of the subjects’ decisions. Since the postdecisional confidence level was negatively correlated with the gap

Page 11: Meaning and career decision-making

MEANING AND CAREER DECISION-MAKING II

between the “ideal” major and the preferred major, the process again implies a modification of dimensions, values, and importance weights in the counseling process. This is aimed at closing the gap and achieving higher confidence with the decision made. A counselor, guided by the terms and processes of the meaning model, can assist the client in changing his/her decision space until a satisfactory structure emerges, i.e., a minimal gap between actual choice and ideal choice. The specific contribution of the meaning model lies in its defined terms and specified process, as opposed to a discussion of the client’s difficulties in vague and general terms. The meaning approach also allows the counselor to quickly identify the individual type of indecision problem, and to focus on it.

Study 2 also supported the hypothesis that individuals will choose the alternative closest to their ideal one when directed in a proper way. More than that, it was found here that actual important choices regarding selection of senior high school were predicted to a large extent by the model and that the unexplained variance might be regarded as reflecting inaccuracy of measurements and, of course, the use of other choice strategies by some subjects.

The proximity of the “ideal” alternative to the chosen (mostly preferred) one was, however, individually determined, i.e., dimensions, values, and importance weights varied from one individual to another. In an interview held after the choices were completed, it was revealed that the choices made were clearly based on a compensatory basis. For instance, Ron chose school A as his first choice and school B as second choice. His most important (rated 10) dimension was the “variety of courses offered.” Ron rated school A as 7 in this dimension and school B as 8. The same held for his second most important dimension, “school academic level”: He rated school A as 7 and school B as 8. However, in less important dimensions, such as “cost of tuition” and “friends at school,” Ron rated school A as higher than school B. The total distance of school A from Ron’s “ideal” school was smaller than that of school B, and indeed school A was chosen by Ron. His ratings and choice exemplify the compensatory basis of the decision-making process. This example also presents possibilities for counseling intervention, by making the client aware of his/her individual process of deciding, i.e., content of individual dimensions chosen for the “ideal” alternative, the compensations made in every selection of alternatives, comparison of ratings between different alternatives and with other clients, etc.

The first stage of the suggested counseling process will be the definition of the subjective “decision space” of the client. In the second stage, the client’s “decision space” may be artificially altered by making changes in any variable of the process. This can be made both by verbal discussion or by computer simulations. The client may thus become aware of how changes of each item can effect his/her selection, such as adding a forgotten

Page 12: Meaning and career decision-making

12 ZAKAYANDBARAK

dimension to the “ideal” alternative description, the changing of ratings of one or more dimensions of each and every alternative, etc. The client may check his decision at every stage and get feedback regarding its rationality. This possible computer-assisted decision-making counseling is very different from common programs (e.g., Farmer, 1976, Melhus, Hershenson, & Vermillion, 1973; Wagman, 1980) especially because of its individual and flexible nature. Since individual styles in career decision- making have found to have an interaction with decision-making counseling strategy (e.g., Lunneborg, 1978; Rubinton, 1980), it seems that the meaning model, through its individualistic approach, may best serve this end.

Recent developments in the cognitive stream in psychology (e.g., Kreitler & Kreitler, 1981; Kruglanski, 1980) and in the study of vocational behavior (e.g., Barak, 1981) call for cognitive intervention. Pitz (1977) and Einhorn and Hogarth (1981) also emphasized the need for detailed cognitive models built within a broad psychological context and with relation to functions like attention, memory, and congitive representation. It would seem that the meaning model may fulfill this need. In contrast to past decision- making models (e.g., Gelatt, 1962; Gelatt et al., 1972; Hilton, 1962) as well as counseling techniques (e.g., Carney, Wells, & Streufert, 1981; Magoon, 1969), the meaning model suggests an emphasis on process in guidance interventions. Instead of an a priori definition of variables (di- mensions) involved in making a decision, the meaning viewpoint proposes that any variable is possible and important, as long as it is meaningful for the individual and does not reflect some pathology. Moreover, personal preferences, beliefs, perceptions, interests, habits, and needs receive greater attention than in common models. As mentioned above, and in contrast to Mitchell (1975), the individual conflict is understood and resolved intrasubjectively since intersubjective judgments may lead to less valid predictions of individual behavior. The individual’s contents should thus be defined within his/her own frame of reference. Specific altering and modifying techniques of individual conceptions should be developed for use in counseling intervention, thereafter the meaning counseling process and its utility should be tested and validated.

REFERENCES Barak, A. Vocational interests: A cognitive view. Journnl of Vocariohal Behavior, 1981,

19, l-14. Bergland, B. Career planning: The use of sequential evaluated experience. In E. L. Herr

(Ed.), Vocation/ guidance und human development. Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, 1974.

Calia, N. F. Vocational guidance after the fall. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1966, 45, 320-327.

Carney, C. G., Wells, C. F., & Streufert. D. Career planning; Skills to build your future. New York: Van Nostrand, 1981.

Ebbessen, E. B. & Konecni, V. J. On the external validity of decision making research: What do we know about decisions in the real world. In T. S. Wallsten (Ed.), Cogniiive processes in choice and decision behavior. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum, 1979.

Page 13: Meaning and career decision-making

MEANING AND CAREER DECISION-MAKING 13

Einhom, H. J. The use of nonlinear, noncompensatory models in decision making. Psy- chological Bulletin, 1970, 73, 221-230.

Einhom, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgment and choice. Annual Review of Psychology, 1981, 32, 53-88.

Farmer, H. INQUIRY project: Computer-assisted counseling centers for adults. The Coun- seling Psychologist, 1976, 6, 50-54.

Gelatt, H. B. Decision-making: A conceptual frame of reference for counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1962, 9, 240-245.

Gelatt, H. B., & Clark, R. B. Role of subjective probabilities in the decision process. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1967, 14, 332-341.

Gelatt, H. B., Varenhorst, B., & Corey, R. Deciding. New York: College Entrance Ex- amination Board, 1972.

Hansen, F. Consumer choice behavior: An experimental approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 1969, 6, 436-443.

Herr, E. L., & Cramer, S. H. Career guidance through the life span. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979.

Hershenson, D. B., & Roth, R. M. A decisional process model of vocational development. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1966, 13, 386-370.

Hilton, T. L. Career decision-making. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1962, 9, 291- 298.

Hilton T. L., Baenninger, R., & Kom, J. H. Cognitive processes in career decision- making. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press 1962.

Jungerman, H. Speculations about decision theoretic aids for personal decision making. Acta Psychologica, 1980, 45, l-34.

Kahneman, D., Slavic, P., & Tversky, A. Judgment under uncertainty. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982.

Kaldor, D. B., & Zytowski, D. G. A minimizing model of occupational decision-making. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1969, 41, 781-788.

Katz, M. R. A model of guidance for career decision-making. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 1966, 15, 2-10.

Kreitler, H., & Kreitler, S. Cognitive orientation and behavior. New York: Springer, 1976. Kreitler, H., & Kreitler, S. Cognitive orientation: Expanding the scope of behavior prediction.

In B. Maher & W. Maher (Eds.), Advances in experimentalpersonality research. New York: Academic Press, 1981. Vol. 2.

Kreitler, S., & Kreitler, H. Dimensions of meaning and their measurement. Psychological Reports, 1968, 23, 1307-1329.

Kreitler, S., & Kreitler, H. Personality and meaning. New York: Academic Press, 1982. Kruglanski, A. W. Lay epistemologic process and contents. Psychological Review, 1980,

87, 70-87. Lunneborg, P. W. Sex and career decision-making styles. Journal of Counseling Psychology,

1978, 25, 299-305. Magoon, T. M. Developing skills for solving educational and vocational problems. In J.

D. Krumboltz & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Behavioral counseling: Cases and techniques. New York: Holt. Rinehart, & Winston, 1969.

Marshall, J. C. Bayesian decision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1967, 14, 342-345. Melhus, G. E., Hershenson, D. B., & Vermillion, M. E. Computer assisted versus traditional

vocational counseling with high and low readiness clients. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1973, 3, 137-144.

Mitchell, T. R., & Beach, L. R. A review of occupational preference and choice research using expectancy theory and decision theory. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 1976, 49, 231-248.

Mitchell, W. D. Restle’s choice model: A reconceptualization for a special case. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1975, 6, 315-330.

Page 14: Meaning and career decision-making

14 ZAKAYANDBARAK

Morris, J. L. Propensity for risk taking as a determinant of vocational choice: An extension of the theory of achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 328-335.

Myers, J. H., & Mark, I. A. Determinant buying attitudes: Meaning and measurement. Journal of Marketing, 1968, 32, 13-20.

Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980.

Osipow, S. H. Theories of career development. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1973. 2nd ed.

Pietrofesa, J. J., & Splete, H. Career development: Theory and research. New York: Grune & Stratton, 197.5.

Pitz, G. F. Decision making and cognition. In H. Jungerman & G. de Zeeuw (Eds.), Decision making and change in human affairs. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1977.

Pitz, G. F., 8c Harren, V. A. An analysis of career decision making from the point of view of information processing and decision theory. Technical report. University of Southern Illinois, 1979.

Restle, F. Psychology of judgment and choice. New York: Wiley, 1961. Rubinton, N. Instruction in career decision making and decision-making styles. Journal

of Counseling Psychology, 1980, 21, 581-588. Sherlock, B., & Cohen, A. The strategy of occupational choice: Recruitment to dentistry.

Social Forces, 1966, 44, 303-313. Slavic, P. Choice between equally valued alternatives. Journal of Experimental Psychology:

Human Perception and Performance, 1975, 1, 280-287. Thoresen, C. E., & Mehrens, W. A. Decision theory and vocational counseling. Personnel

and Guidance Journal, 1967, 46, 165-172. Tiedeman, D. Decision and vocational development: A paradigm and its implications.

Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1961, 40, 15-21. Tversky, A. Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 1972, 79,

28 l-290. Tversky, A. & Sattath, S. Preference trees. Psychological Review, 1979, 86, 542-573. Wagman, M. PLATO DCS: An interactive computer system for personal counseling.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1980, 21, 16-30. Wilkie, L. W., & Pessemier, E. A. Issues in marketing’s use of multi-attribute attitude

models. Journal of Marketing Research. 1973, 10, 428-441. Wooler, S. Aiding the client and the counselor: An application of structuring and assessment

technology to the field of career decision problems. Proceedings of the Eighth conference on Subjective Probability, Utility and Decision Making. Budapest, Hungary, 1981.

Wright, P. The harassed decision maker: Time pressures, distractions and the use of evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 555-561.

Zeleny, M. The attribute-dynamic attitude model. Management Sciences, 1976, 23, 12- 25.

Ziller, R. C. Vocational choice and utility for risk. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1957, 4, 61-64.

Zunker, V. G. Career counseling: Applied concepts of life planning. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1981.

REFERENCE NOTE 1. Zakay, D. Time pressure and compensatory decisions. Unpublished manuscript, Tel-

Aviv University, 1982.

Received: December 7, 1982.