http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.

nz/

Research Commons at the University of Waikato

Copyright Statement:
The digital copy of this thesis is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand).

The thesis may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of the
Act and the following conditions of use:

 Any use you make of these documents or images must be for research or private
study purposes only, and you may not make them available to any other person.
 Authors control the copyright of their thesis. You will recognise the author’s right
to be identified as the author of the thesis, and due acknowledgement will be
made to the author where appropriate.
 You will obtain the author’s permission before publishing any material from the
thesis.
FACTORS AFFECTING STUDENTS’ CAREER
CHOICE IN NEW ZEALAND

A thesis

submitted in partial fulfilment

of the requirements for the degree

of

Master of Applied Psychology (Organisational)

at

The University of Waikato

by

NATALIA GRACE MAY HONG PANG

2014
 Abstract

The aim of this study was to identify the factors influencing career
decisions of tertiary students in New Zealand. The relationship between the
factors and cultural values held by students was also ascertained. In addition, the
career decision self-efficacy (CDSE) was used to assess if perceived significant
others’ influence increased their degree of belief as to whether they are able to
successfully complete tasks necessary to make career decisions. Finally, the
relatedness between students’ career choice and fields of study were examined.

Participants of this study were full-time students, who were in the final
academic year of their qualification. They were recruited, via e-mail invitations,
to complete an online questionnaire, measuring four constructs – factors
affecting career decision, cultural/personal values, perceived significant others’
influence, and CDSE. The final sample consisted of 151 respondents.

Results showed that collectivistic values correlated significantly with

extrinsic and altruistic factors while individualistic values correlated significantly
with intrinsic values. Cultural values had no significant impact on perceived
significant others’ influence. There were no gender differences in relation to
perceiving the influence of significant others and both genders preferred seeking
career advice from their mothers/stepmothers compared to their
fathers/stepfathers. Only supportive relationships (a form of perceived
significant others’ influence) correlated significantly with CDSE. Finally,
relatedness between career decision and field of study increased with age and
was higher in students enrolled in a field of study developing specific skills and in
students pursuing post-graduate qualifications.

Although no causal inferences may be drawn from the results of this

study, this research has further contributed to the limited number of studies
focusing on career decision making among students in New Zealand. It is hoped

ii
that the findings are able to provide some critical information to tertiary
institutions, organisations, and career counsellors.

iii
 Acknowledgements

I have never boxed or watched a boxing match before. However, for the
last 12 months (rounds), I have certainly felt like I was involved in a great match.
My opponent? A 90-point thesis, which gathers its strength from an impending
deadline and the difficulty involved in completing a thesis.

The first round was almost an immediate knockout for me as I found it

difficult to punch in a topic let alone deliver anything convincing in the form of a
thesis proposal. However, in my corner stood my coaches, Dr Donald Cable and
Professor Michael O’Driscoll. Their advice, guidance, and patience carried me
through to the end.

In the next few rounds, I felt the pressure mounting on me as time after
time I failed to deliver good punches (chapters). So in between rounds, when I
looked to the first row of the crowd, I saw my father, mother, and brother
cheering me on the loudest. They never stopped believing that I can defeat this
difficult opponent. In the second row, I see my friends, especially Yen Pin, who
gave me unfailing support and patience (in listening to my complaints) as well as
Jessica and Amanda, my sparring partners (proof-readers).

By round seven, the fatigue has set in, and I experienced the lack of
motivation to carry on. My legs have grown heavy and I faced another near loss.
As I tried to gather my strength during the short break, I looked up to the
heavens and saw my creator and those who left this world before me, my
beloved grandmother and Amanda. They smiled down, told me not to worry, and
that I will win this battle

At last, in round 12, I delivered the killer punch (the last full stop in
Chapter 4) and I have won my battle! Thus, I have reached the end of my match
in which I could not have ended it a victor if not for the guidance, support, and
belief given by those mentioned above. Words alone can never justify my
gratitude to all of you.

iv
 Table of Contents

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................... iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ v

LISTS OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. viii

LISTS OF TABLES .................................................................................................... viii

CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1

1.1 Research Purpose .......................................................................................... 8

1.2 Culture ........................................................................................................... 9

1.3 Significant Others’ Influence ....................................................................... 11

1.3.1 Significant Others’ Influence and Culture ............................................ 13

1.3.2 Significant Others’ Influence and Gender ............................................ 16

1.4 Career Decision Self-Efficacy (CDSE) ........................................................... 17

1.5 Career Decision and Relatedness to Field of Study .................................... 18

1.6 Summary of Hypotheses ............................................................................. 20

1.7 Summary ..................................................................................................... 21

CHAPTER TWO – METHOD .................................................................................... 22

2.1 Participants ................................................................................................. 22

2.2 Procedure .................................................................................................... 23

2.3 Measures ..................................................................................................... 24

2.3.1 Factors Influencing Career Decision..................................................... 25

2.3.2 Cultural/Personal Values ...................................................................... 25

2.3.3 Career Behaviour Checklist .................................................................. 26

2.3.4 Career Decision Self-Efficacy Short Form (CDSE-SF) ............................ 26

2.3.5 Preferred Significant Other .................................................................. 27

v
 2.3.6 Career Decision and Relatedness to Field of Study ............................. 27

2.4 Integrity of Measures .................................................................................. 28

2.4.1 Factors Influencing Career Decision..................................................... 28

2.4.2 Cultural/Personal Values ...................................................................... 30

2.4.3 Career Behaviour Checklist .................................................................. 32

2.4.4 Career Decision Self-Efficacy Short Form (CDSE-SF) ............................ 35

2.5 Missing Data Substitution and Data Transformation ................................. 36

2.6 Data Analyses for Results ............................................................................ 36

2.7 Summary ..................................................................................................... 36

CHAPTER THREE – RESULTS .................................................................................. 37

3.1 Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................... 37

3.2 Correlations and Cronbach’s Alpha Values of Measures ............................ 38

3.3 Factors Influencing Career Decision and Cultural Values ........................... 39

3.4 Significant Others’ Influence, Culture, and Gender .................................... 40

3.5 Significant Others’ Influence and Career Decision Self-Efficacy (CDSE) ..... 42

3.6 Relatedness between Field of Study and Career Decision ......................... 43

3.7 Supplementary Findings.............................................................................. 45

3.8 Summary ..................................................................................................... 46

CHAPTER FOUR – DISCUSSION .............................................................................. 47

4.1 Main Findings and Implications .................................................................. 47

4.1.1 Factors Influencing Career Decision and Cultural Values .................... 48

4.1.2 Significant Others’ Influence, Culture, and Gender ............................. 50

4.1.3 Significant Others’ Influence and Career Decision Self-Efficacy (CDSE)

....................................................................................................................... 52

4.1.4 Relatedness between Field of Study and Career Decision .................. 53

4.2 Strengths ..................................................................................................... 55

vi
 4.3 Limitations ................................................................................................... 56

4.4 Future Research .......................................................................................... 57

4.5 Implications for Tertiary Institutions and Organisations ............................ 58

4.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 59

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 60

APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... 71

Appendix A – Invitation E-mail .......................................................................... 71

Appendix B – Hardcopy of Questionnaire......................................................... 72

Appendix C – Information Page ........................................................................ 79

Appendix D – Acknowledgement and Summary of Results Page ..................... 80

Appendix E – Ethics Approval Letter ................................................................. 81

Appendix F – Scree Plot (Factors Influencing Career Decision) ........................ 82

Scree Plot (Initial) .......................................................................................... 82

Scree Plot (Final) ........................................................................................... 82

Appendix G – Scree Plot (Cultural/Personal Values) ........................................ 83

Scree Plot (Initial) .......................................................................................... 83

Scree Plot (Final) ........................................................................................... 83

Appendix H – Scree Plot (Career Behaviour Checklist) ..................................... 84

Scree Plot (Initial) .......................................................................................... 84

Scree Plot (Final) ........................................................................................... 84

Appendix I – Scree Plot (Career Decision Self-Efficacy Short Form) ................. 85

Scree Plot ...................................................................................................... 85

vii
 Lists of Figures

Figure 1. Factors influencing students’ career decision ......................................... 5

Figure 2. Factors affecting relatedness between field of study and career decision
................................................................................................................................. 7

Lists of Tables

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Skewness, and Kurtosis of Measures ....... 37

Table 2. Correlations of Measures ........................................................................ 39

viii
 Chapter One - Introduction

This chapter describes the theories and concepts used to build this study.
The research models upon which the study is based on is also included.
Additionally, research objectives are discussed. Lastly, hypotheses are also
described backed with sound rationale.

‘Career’ is defined as “being in relationship with identity and providing a

residual trace of the individual’s relationship with work” (Coupland, 2004, p. 515).
The term is also used to refer to an occupation or job held for a significant period
of time in an individual’s life and it may present him or her with opportunities to
progress (Oxford Dictionaries, 2014). The definitions demonstrate the
importance and significance of the role of a career to an individual and the first
step in acquiring a career is to choose one. This step may be daunting as
choosing the wrong career may negatively affect other aspects of an individual’s
life such as health, relationships, and home life (Pavlina, 2007). Although the
pursuit of money is usually cited as the main cause for selecting a wrong career,
it is often an excuse to mask deeper issues (Young V. , 2013). They include
turning other people’s dreams into an individual’s own dreams and not wanting
to waste a pursued degree. Based on the above discussion, it can be concluded
that it is important to study how individuals go about making a career decision.

The purpose of this study was to investigate New Zealand tertiary

students’ career intentions upon completing their studies and the factors
influencing their decisions. The four main aims were to (1) investigate if students
seek employment which relates to their fields of study, (2) ascertain the
relationship between factors students rely on when deciding on their careers and
cultural values, (3) explore if students identified perceived significant others’
influence when deciding on their careers, and (4) investigate if perceived
significant others’ influence is beneficial to students. These objectives are
explained further in the subsequent section of this chapter.

1
 Choosing a career involves a matching process (Gokuladas, 2010). That is,
an individual matches his or her personal needs, attributes, interests, strengths,
and weaknesses with the field or career that fits him or her best. Additionally,
choosing a career involves going through three stages (Young B. , 1995). The first
is called the “fantasy” stage (from early childhood to age 11). The second is
called the “tentative” stage (between ages 11 and 17). The third and final stage is
known as the “realistic” stage (between age 17 and young adulthood) and it is in
the last stage, that the career decision is made. By this point, many individuals
have developed their self-identities (e.g. strengths, weaknesses, interests, and
abilities), thus are able to match their attributes with available career
alternatives. According to Myers (1996), self-identity refers to a person’s self-
concept which includes the answer to the question “who am I?”. Hence, it
includes aspects such as gender roles, sexuality, racial identity, and academic
performance (Myers, 1996).

Another theory on career development was proposed by Super (1980),

which he called Life-Long Career Rainbow. According to Super (1980), an
individual’s career is part of his or her self-concept. Self-concepts change over
time and develop because of experience, hence, it is concluded that career
development is lifelong (Careers New Zealand, 2012; Super, 1980). Based on the
Life-Long Career Rainbow theory, there are five stages of career development.
They are “growth”, “exploration”, “establishment”, “maintenance”, and
“decline”. In the first stage (from birth to age 14), an individual develops his or
her self-concept, attitudes, needs, and general world of work. Between the ages
of 15-24, the “exploration” stage occurs during which one explores classes, work
experiences, and hobbies. What also occurs during this stage is that the
individual makes a tentative career choice. Upon entering the “establishment”
stage, the individual establishes oneself by building stability through work
experience. This stage occurs between the ages of 25 and 44. From the age of
45-64, the individual’s focus is that of maintenance, to continue improving his or
her position at work. Finally, from the age of 65, the individual reduces his or her
input at work as he or she prepares for retirement. The Life-Long Career Rainbow

2
theory also applies to what Super called a “maxi cycle” of career progression. He
also stated that some individuals would experience “mini cycles”, which are
interim re-evaluations and adjustments that follow the same pattern in
miniature (Meindl, 2009).

Today, however, Super’s theory may no longer be relevant for everyone

as job-hopping is common (Smith, 2013). Job-hopping is defined as moving from
one organisation to another for a lateral move or promotion and appeal more to
members of Gen X or Gen Y (Smith, 2013). These labels apply to different groups
of individuals according to when they were born. Gen X is comprised of people
born between 1965 and 1979 while Gen Y is applied to those born between 1980
and 1994 (McCrindle Research, 2012). The financial values held by individuals in
Gen X and Gen Y are medium-term goals and short-term wants respectively
(McCrindle Research, 2012), thus making them more likely to job hop in
comparison to the Baby Boomer generational grouping. According to McCrindle
Research (2012), the Baby Boomers generation includes individuals born
between the years of 1946 and 1964. The financial values of individuals in this
category are focussed on long-term needs. Smith (2013) added that while the
Baby Boomers’ principles when working are stoic, long-term oriented, and
collectivistic, Gen X and Gen Y employees are more prone to instant self-
gratification and individualism.

Due to the differences in financial values held by the different

generations, some individuals today view job-hopping as climbing the corporate
ladder instead of Super’s (1980) theory of staying with a single organisation for
one’s whole career. Among the advantages of job-hopping are the opportunities
to acquire valuable knowledge in various environments and culture, building a
large and resourceful network, and earning more money (Smith, 2013). On the
down side, job-hopping may cause job dissatisfaction, future employers may be
hesitant to employ those who frequently job hop, and there is the risk of
damaging relationships when leaving an organisation (Smith, 2013).

3
 Considering these opposing theories, individuals today are still facing the
need to make career decisions and, based on the theories discussed, it could be
seen that making a career choice is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon.
Thus, it is difficult to predict or understand why students make particular
decisions in regards to their career paths. Nevertheless, it is understood that
making a career decision involves an interplay between an individual’s
characteristics and the contextual factors of structure and culture, which
enhances or constructs his or her social world (Sibson, 2011).

There are many theoretical approaches in the field of career decisions.

Some of these theories focus on the individual making the decision alone. In
contrast to this, the opposing views are those that focus on the organisation’s
considerations and constraints (Sibson, 2011). Other perspectives addressing
career decision making also include additional factors such as cultural norms and
the influence of caregivers (Gokuladas, 2010). Regardless of the additional
influences that may or may not be helpful to an individual reaching a decision,
and based on the research reviewed, all individuals are believed to consider the
following factors (Dockery & Barns, 2005; Jaw, Wang, Ling, & Chang, 2006;
Marini, Fan, Finley, & Beutel, 1996; Schwartz, 1999; Sibson, 2011; Yong, 1995;
Young B. , 1995):

a) Extrinsic factors
This category includes aspects that focus on instrumental resources that
are separable from the meaning of work. In this study, they were defined
as a good starting salary, good future earnings potential, good career
opportunities, variety of career opportunities, high status of future
career, standard and flexible hours of work, opportunities for promotion
and travel, transferability of work skills, pleasant working conditions, job
security, and availability of jobs. These resources are also known as safety
resources as they enable individuals to fulfil their basic needs such as
hunger and shelter.

4
 b) Intrinsic factors
This category of factors is linked directly to the job itself. Individuals who
place higher importance on intrinsic factors will value work for its
inherent interest and importance. In this present study, they included
interesting work, opportunities for creativity and originality, enjoyable
work, responsibility level involved in the job, and challenging work.
c) Altruistic factors
The final category contains factors relating to service themes, that is, jobs
that allow individuals to help society. In this study, they included
opportunities to work closely with people and to influence others as well
as the ability to contribute to society.

The relationships between the above factors and students’ career

decision are shown in Figure 1, which illustrates the research model
underpinning this study.

Factors affecting students’

career choices:

Cultural values: Extrinsic – Factors

separable from the
meaning of work (e.g.
Salary, promotion,
Individualistic working hours, and
Perceived working conditions)
significant
others’ Intrinsic – Factors
influence directly linked to the
Collectivistic
job (e.g. Interesting
and challenging work
and opportunities for
creativity and
originality)

Moderator:
Altruistic – Factors
 Gender
relating to service
themes. (e.g. Ability to
help the society and
Career decision opportunities to work
closely with people)
self-efficacy

Figure 1. Factors influencing students’ career decision.

5
 Based on Figure 1, individuals will contemplate on extrinsic, intrinsic, and
altruistic factors when deciding on their careers (Dockery & Barns, 2005; Jaw et
al., 2006; Marini et al., 1996; Schwartz, 1999; Sibson, 2011; Yong, 1995; Young B.,
1995). Other factors such as cultural values (Jaw et al., 2006; Oishi, Diener, Lucas,
& Suh, 1999; Schneider & Barsoux, 2003) and the influence of significant others
(Hinkelman & Luzzo, 2007; Keller & Whiston, 2008; Roach, 2010) can affect how
students decide on their careers.

Tertiary students may also rely on these factors to arrive at a career

decision (Dockery & Barns, 2005; Gokuladas, 2010; Ma & Yeh, 2005; Sibson,
2011). For them, deciding on their careers is a very important matter as it is a key
element of their identity development (Roach, 2010). In addition, the student
population is unique because many of them are living on their own for the first
time while dealing with many coinciding issues and concerns. For this group of
students, attending university would be the first time many of them are
separated from their families (Roach, 2010). Thus, these students are required to
be independent as their families may not be around to discuss some critical
issues with them. Besides having to deal with the separation, they also want to
perform well academically, fit in with their peers, and make friends as well as
determine a career path that fits them best (King & Howard-Hamilton, 2000).

In addition, some external factors may also influence career decision-

making. These include a tight job market and underemployment. Due to current
economic conditions, the job market is tight and therefore some students will
have the element of ‘choice’ removed when seeking employment upon
graduation, instead they will be forced to settle for any employment (Livingstone,
2004). Secondly, some students will be facing underemployment after
completing their studies, meaning they will not be able to secure a full-time job
or will only be able to acquire a job that they are overqualified to perform (over-
qualification or over-education) (Livingstone, 2004). Livingstone (2004) also
noted that over the past decade, many high school and college graduates faced
underemployment. Besides economic reasons, they are underemployed because
many organisations have undergone extensive restructuring, which eliminates

6
many middle-level positions. This causes many graduates to compete in the
entry-level labour market (Livingstone, 2004).

A report of underemployment published recently in New Zealand,

revealed that 11% of the population were underemployed (Statistics New
Zealand, 2013). Additionally, it was also reported that more women experienced
higher levels of underemployment compared to men primarily because there
were more women working in part-time jobs. Statistics New Zealand (2013) also
stated that youth (between the ages of 15 and 24 years old) were most likely to
be underemployed (26.9%) and that many of them were only able to secure part-
time jobs. In addition, it was revealed that New Zealand Europeans had the
lowest percentage (4.0%) of underemployment, followed by Asians (4.6%) and
Pacific Peoples were ranked third with 5.1%. The ethnic group with the highest
rates of underemployment were Maori, recorded at 7.0%. With regards to
underemployment and industry, the highest rates are within the retail industry
and accommodation services (Statistics New Zealand, 2013).

As previously mentioned, one of the objectives of this study was to

investigate if students’ career decisions are related to their fields of study. Figure
2 illustrates factors affecting relatedness. Based on previous studies, the factors
included in this study were field of study, qualification, and age (Boudarbat &
Chernoff, 2012; Robst, 2007).

Field of study

Relatedness
between field of Qualification
study and career
decision

Age

Figure 2. Factors affecting relatedness between field of study and career decision.

7
1.1 Research Purpose

There were four main objectives in this study. One of the objectives was
to investigate if students would seek employment related to the qualifications
they obtained from their tertiary institution. Secondly, the study also examined
the factors that affect students’ decisions when choosing a career upon
completing their studies as completing a tertiary education qualification today is
expensive. Therefore, it was important to investigate if students would seek to
make a return on their investment by looking for a job based on extrinsic factors
such as salary and other benefits. Conversely, some students will be driven by
intrinsic factors, that is, they would look for a job that is challenging and
meaningful to them. A third group of students will be influenced by altruistic
factors, which relate to service themes. In addition, some students may decide
based on a combination of these factors. These factors were categorised as such
based on many related previous studies that adopted the same approach
(Dockery & Barns, 2005; Jaw et al., 2006; Marini et al., 1996; Schwartz, 1999;
Sibson, 2011, Yong, 1995; Young B., 1995).

The next research aim was to ascertain if other social elements would
influence the factors affecting students’ career choices. In previous research,
findings has shown that social aspects such as culture (Jaw et al., 2006; Oishi et
al., 1999; Schneider & Barsoux, 2003) and significant others’ influence
(Hinkelman & Luzzo, 2007; Keller & Whiston, 2008; Roach, 2010) dictate which
factors that students rely on when making a decision. Significant others may
include students’ parents, foster parents, or any other caregivers. Moreover,
these two particular factors were chosen because students at university often
come from many different countries and cultures and therefore it was important
to include culture. Many previous studies have also found that students from
different cultures place differing significance levels to different aspects in
comparison to those from a culture different to their own when deciding on their
careers. Significant others’ influence was identified as a key factor to research as
it has been found that primary caregivers have an effect on much of their child’s

8
development, including what field of study to pursue when starting their tertiary
studies (Hahs-Vaughn, 2004; Hinkelman & Luzzo, 2007; Luyckx, Soenens,
Gooseens, & Vansteenkiste, 2007; Roach, 2010). Because of such findings, it was
important to identify if caregivers still have influence on students in relation to
making career decisions. The final research aim was to investigate students’ self-
efficacy in making a career decision. This was especially important to establish if
significant others’ influence is beneficial to students.

1.2 Culture

The use of the term ‘culture’ in this study refers to the individualistic and
collectivistic values held by participants in this study. Since most universities
today attract students from different countries, it was interesting and important
to explore how students who hold different cultural values decide on their
careers. This is because individuals from different cultures place different levels
of importance on different values when deciding on their careers (Jaw et al.,
2006). For example, the relative importance of money, status, or vacation time
differs across cultures and ethnicities (Schneider & Barsoux, 2003). Schneider
and Barsoux (2003) also stated that the rewards employees seek from work,
both financial and non-financial incentives, vary across cultures. Similarly, culture
plays a major role in distinguishing work values and their priorities, dependent
on whether they are members of collectivist or individualist cultures (Holden,
2002; Pelled & Xin, 1997).

According to Ng, Burke, and Fiksenbaum (2008), individuals who hold

collectivistic values place more emphasis on helping others (altruistic factors).
Similar results were found in other studies (Jaw et al., 2006; Marini et al., 1996).
Marini et al. (1996) added that ethnic minorities value altruistic rewards highly
because they are more likely to empathise with others in disadvantaged
positions.

9
 Safety resources have been found to be a significant predictor of life
satisfaction in both individualistic and collectivistic cultures (Oishi et al., 1999).
Oishi et al. (1999) stated that safety resources include financial needs. Hence, in
this study, safety resources were classified as an extrinsic factor. Oishi et al.
(1999) also found that people who hold individualistic cultural values tended to
weigh satisfaction with esteem needs (self-respect and power to make decisions)
more heavily than did people with collectivistic values. In other words, it was
found that while members of both individualistic and collectivistic cultures would
rate extrinsic factors to be important, the former would also rate intrinsic factors
more highly.

Markus and Kitayama (1991) suggested that the achievement motive is

very important among individuals with collectivistic values. The authors further
stated that in an analysis of Chinese children’s stories, the most common
behaviour was achievement-oriented in nature, followed by altruism. They also
indicated that achievement is related to familism and filial piety, that is, students
who hold collectivistic values would rate prestige highly to enhance the social
standing of their families. Filial piety can be defined as “to respect one’s parents
and to care for one’s parents” (Sung, 1995, p. 240). All of these factors were
categorised as extrinsic factors in this study.

Moreover, individuals with collectivistic values were found to appreciate

factors such as spending time with their families and time off work (Stone,
Johnson, Stone-Romero, & Hartman, 2005). By highly valuing such factors, it can
be asserted that they may prefer jobs that provide them with opportunities to
spend time with their families. On the other hand, Stone et al. (2005) drew
comparison with those who hold individualistic values that they would more
likely prefer jobs that would allow them to compete to gain fulfilment through a
sense of achievement. It was also indicated that they prefer jobs that allow them
to express themselves as individuals or in an independent capacity. Stone et al.’s
(2005) research found that Hispanic Americans preferred jobs with flexible hours,
thus allowing them to spend time with their families. This finding was based on
the assumption that most Hispanic Americans hold collectivistic values due to

10
membership of collective cultures. As collectivistic cultures also endorse high
power distance, Hispanic Americans were found to want jobs with higher
promotion prospects. Lastly, the study found that Hispanic Americans also
preferred jobs that provide them with opportunities to form relationships with
their co-workers and supervisors. All of these factors were categorised as
extrinsic factors.

To conclude, individuals from different cultures place varying emphasis

on various factors that influence their decision making process when deciding on
their career pathway. Based on previous research results, it can be said that
individuals who hold collectivistic values place more importance on helping
others (altruistic factor), spending time with their families (thus emphasise on a
job with standard working hours – extrinsic factor), and achievement or prestige
(which relates to familism and filial piety – extrinsic factor). On the contrary,
individuals with individualistic values tended to emphasise more on esteem
needs such as self-respect and power to make decisions (intrinsic factors).

Based on the preceding discussion, the following hypotheses were

developed:

H1 – Collectivistic values will correlate more strongly with extrinsic factors than
will individualistic values.

H2 – Individualistic values will correlate more strongly with intrinsic factors than
will collectivistic values.

H3 – Collectivistic values will correlate more strongly with altruistic factors than
will individualistic values.

1.3 Significant Others’ Influence

The term ‘significant others’ in this study is used to refer to biological

parents as well as foster parents and other caregivers. Their influence in this

11
study is applicable to two situations. The first is when parents/caregivers take
actions that will influence their children’s career decisions including helping their
child to choose a field of study or asking a child to enter a career that they would
prefer to see their child pursue. The second situation is when students refer to
their parents/caregivers for guidance when making a career decision. For
instance, asking parents/caregivers for advice when choosing a career. The
influence of significant others in this study was assessed by the students’
perception of the level of this influence.

For many students, prior to attending university or college, the majority

of their time is spent with their families (Roach, 2010). Therefore, their
parents/caregivers have considerable influence on their development
throughout those formative years. Additionally, although many students have
increased freedom and independence while pursuing tertiary studies, as well as
reduced amount of time spent with their families, it would still seem likely that
parents/caregivers would have an impact on their development (Hinkelman &
Luzzo, 2007).

Many parent-related variables including parenting styles, parental

attachment, and parental regulations have been found to be associated with
university students’ psychosocial development. These factors have been found to
have an influence on students’ identity formation, self-esteem, academic
performance, and social competence (Hahs-Vaughn, 2004; Luyckx et al., 2007;
Roach, 2010).

Students’ career decisions are given similar attention, as

parents/caregivers regularly encounter events that influence a child’s career
choices (Young R. , 1994). For example, they may encourage their child to
undertake some activity in high school. In their minds, this may have important
long-term consequences although this long-term vision may not be clear to the
child and they are not interested in the rationale behind his or her
parents/caregivers’ actions. Additionally, they may also intervene on the behalf
of their child when the child would prefer his or her parents/caregivers not to,

12
thus reaching the conclusion that the actions of significant others influence their
child’s career decision.

Studies carried out in India and the United States of America (USA) found
that parental behaviours were related to the career development of middle
school students (Gokuladas, 2010; Keller & Whiston, 2008). Keller and Whiston
(2008) further asserted that parental behaviours tended to align more with
career decision self-efficacy (CDSE) than with career maturity. However, the
authors also mentioned that parents’ influence might be more potent during
high school compared to college or university. Other studies have found similar
results (Bluestein, Walbridge, Friedlander, & Palladino, 1991; Lucas, 1997;
O'Brien, Friedman, Tipton, & Linn, 2000).

Otto’s (2000) study of high school students in the USA found that from
the students’ perspective, there is compatibility between parents’ and youth’s
values, aspirations, and plans. (Otto, 2000) explained that when asked ‘How
closely do your ideas agree or disagree with your parents’ ideas about what you
should do with your life’, 81.0% of the respondents said that their ideas were
similar to their parents’. Additionally, 46.0% of students stated that their ideas
were congruent with their parents’ when asked ‘How closely do your ideas agree
or disagree with your parents’ ideas about what kind of occupation you should
enter”. Furthermore, in other studies it was found that college students
perceived their family to be a significant influence in their career decisions
(Bright, Pryor, Wilkenfield, & Earl, 2005). Bright et al., (2005) asserted that
“father, mother, and university information were the most frequently indicated
major influences on students’ career decision-making” (p.25).

1.3.1 Significant Others’ Influence and Culture

According to Ma and Yeh (2005), for many Chinese American youths,

deciding on a career can be a daunting task. This is because they are faced with

13
the need to balance their own interests with what is acceptable to their
parents/caregivers. Additionally, career decision-making is especially challenging
for students if their immigrant parents/caregivers believe that only certain
careers will lead their children to success (Ma & Yeh, 2005). These careers are
usually in the fields of medicine, law, and engineering. The same can be applied
to students who hold collectivistic values. This is because there is a strong
emphasis on family involvement in all aspects of life (Leong & Hardin, 2002).

In collectivistic societies, the self is more attached to the group (Triandis,

Brislin, & Hui, 1988). Therefore, individuals from collective societies prefer (and
are expected) to subordinate their personal goals to in-group goals. Because of
this worldview, there is a tendency to be more concerned with the consequences
of one’s behaviour. Additionally, collectivists place importance on values of
harmony, family security, and cooperation. In comparison, in an individualistic
culture, the self is more autonomous and separate, thus resulting in personal
goals being prioritised over in-group goals. Additionally, more importance or
value is placed on asserting their individuality. Individuals with individualistic
values are also more content with personal accomplishments. Upon reflection on
the comparison, families are seen to have a larger and integral role in the
process of career development among students with collectivistic values than for
those from individualist cultures (Ma & Yeh, 2005).

Likewise, Ng et al. (2008) reported that factors such as national culture

and values had definite influence over career choice and career expectations of
students. The authors stated that the career exploration process for some
individuals might include their families, depending on their cultures. Based on
this, Ng et al. (2008) explained that an individual with collectivistic values may
view making a career decision to be a family matter and would therefore consult
their family members when making a decision.

Many previous studies also found similar results. Tang, Fouad, and Smith
(1999) found that family involvement and feedback in career planning had a
strong impact on Asian American college students’ career choices. In another

14
study, it was ascertained that Asian Americans were more likely to follow their
parents/caregivers’ advice on career choice when compared to European
Americans (Leong & Serafica, 1995). The authors added that the reason for this
was likely due to Asian cultural values that emphasised respect and obedience
toward authority and older individuals.

Comparable results were also found among other ethnic minorities in the
USA. Parents/caregivers were also reported to have an impact on the career
development of African American and Mexican American college students (Fisher
& Padmawidjaja, 1999). In Puerto Rico, it was ascertained that career path
choices must not only be good for one’s self but also positive for the family and
community as well (Hernandez, 1995). Research in Australia indicated that
parents/caregivers and teachers’ influences had greater impact on career choices
for Hong Kong and Taiwanese students when compared to Australian students
(Auyeong & Sands, 1997). Hong Kong and Taiwan were classified as collectivistic
countries and Australia as an individualistic one (Auyeong & Sands, 1997;
Hofstede, 1983).

Similar results could be found in New Zealand. Based on the preceding

findings, it was presumed that New Zealand European students will be more
individualistic when compared to students from other ethnicities such as Maori,
Pacific Peoples, and Asians. At the same time, it is important to note that not all
Maori, Pacific Peoples, and Asians will be collectivistic. This is because these
students from collectivistic cultures may have adopted Western values such as
self-determination, independence, and separation from one’s family in order to
pursue personal interests (Ying, Coombs, & Lee, 1999). Likewise, New Zealand
European students may also adopt a collectivistic culture. Consequently, it was
important in this study to measure each student’s levels of collectivism and
individualism when looking at how significant others influenced their career
decisions to acquire results that were more accurate.

To support the above assumption, Podsiadlowski and Fox (2011)

conducted a study on collectivist value orientations among four ethnic groups

15
(New Zealand Europeans, Maori, Chinese, and Pacific Peoples) in New Zealand
and found New Zealand Europeans to have the least collective preferences while
Pacific Peoples ranked the highest in collectivism. It was also indicated that
Maori and Chinese held collectivistic values (Podsiadlowski & Fox, 2011).
Additionally, another study indicated Maori to be more collectivistic compared to
New Zealand Europeans (Harrington & Liu, 2002).

Based on the discussion above, the following hypothesis was made:

H4 – Collectivistic values will correlate more strongly with perceived significant

others’ influence when making a career decision than will individualistic values.

1.3.2 Significant Others’ Influence and Gender

According to Otto (2000), both males and females discuss their career
decisions with their families. However, females report having more discussions
than males. For instance, one particular item in his study was ‘During the past
year, how often did you discuss occupational career plans with your parent’.
More females (54.0%) agreed to the item compared to only 41.0% of the males
questioned. However, it was not mentioned if the difference found was
statistically significant. It was also found in this context that mothers were
preferred to talk to over fathers, due to the fact that mothers were deemed to
be more helpful, nurturing, and understanding (Otto, 2000). Otto (2000) further
asserted that 81.0% of the respondents indicated that they talked about what
careers they wanted to enter with their mothers while 62% discussed the same
issue with their fathers. Otto’s (2000) research also found that mothers were
more aware of their children’s career interests and abilities (54.0%) than the
fathers were. Finally, respondents also indicated that mothers (75.0%) were the
most helpful when discussing career plans. Hence, it was not surprising that they
preferred discussing their career plans with their mothers (55.0%) to their
fathers (48.0%) (Otto, 2000).

16
 Based on the preceding argument, the following hypotheses were made:

H5 – Female students will perceive having more significant others’ influence

when deciding on their careers compared to male students.

H6 – Students of both genders will prefer asking their mothers/stepmothers than

fathers/stepfathers for career advice.

1.4 Career Decision Self-Efficacy (CDSE)

Career decision self-efficacy (CDSE) was included in this study to

investigate if significant others’ influence benefited students or otherwise. CDSE
in this study was assessed as perceived by students. Self-efficacy is defined as an
individual’s beliefs in his or her ability to perform a task or behaviour successfully
(Bandura, 1978). Bandura (1978) also stated that self-efficacy could be acquired
and modified through four specified sources of information. They include
performance accomplishments from executing the task or behaviour in question,
vicarious learning or modelling, verbal persuasion such as support, praise, and
encouragement from others, and lower levels of emotional arousal such as
anxiety in relation with the task or behaviour. The same can be said in regards to
self-efficacy in making career decisions (Betz & Hackett, 1986; Betz & Luzzo,
1996). Hence, CDSE is referred to as “self-efficacy expectancies in relation to the
wide range of behaviours necessary to the career choice and adjustment process”
(Betz & Luzzo, 1996, p. 280).

Several studies have investigated the relationship between the influence

of significant others and CDSE of students. Keller and Whiston (2008) found
parents/caregivers’ support to be an important predictor of young adolescents’
CDSE in the USA. They added that young adolescents’ self-efficacy increases
when their parents/caregivers are interested in them as individuals, believe in
their abilities, trust them to make good decisions, and are proud of them. Hence,
they concluded that students with higher CDSE have parents/caregivers who

17
appear to value them and their needs, opinions, and goals. Similarly, it was also
ascertained that young adolescents believe in their own career decision-making
abilities only to the degree to which they perceive their significant others believe
in them (Gecas & Seff, 1990). O’Brien et al. (2000) found that being attached to
parents/caregivers may lead to the development of confidence in pursuing
career-related tasks. Moreover, it was found that perceived significant others’
influences related to college students’ career development (Bright et al., 2005;
Hinkelman & Luzzo, 2007; Roach, 2010). Additionally, it was found that
significant others’ influence was related to overall self-esteem of adolescents
(Bush, 2008).

Thus, the following hypothesis was made:

H7 – Significant others’ influence will be positively related to career decision self-

efficacy.

1.5 Career Decision and Relatedness to Field of Study

According to Robst (2007), students further their studies in tertiary

institutions to succeed in the labour market. Because of this, one component of
labour market success is the ability to utilise the investment students have made
in college or university in future employment. He added that individuals select a
field of study based on a variety of factors including expected earnings, patterns
of labour force participation, uncertainty, and the likelihood of graduation. The
fact that students have significant knowledge about the wages in the fields they
have chosen to study in suggests that they are selecting a field with the
anticipation of working in a job related to their field of study (Betts, 1996).

On the contrary, when students select a field of study that contributes to

the acquisition of general skills instead of specific skill, the likelihood of them
switching to a different field when choosing a career increases (Dolton & Kidd,
1998). This is because the acquisition of general skills enables a person to be

18
occupationally mobile as the skills are transferable. According to Robst (2007),
“general skills transfer to jobs in other fields, while only a portion of occupation
specific skills are likely to transfer” (p. 400). Examples of fields of study
developing specific set of skills include engineering and computer science. On the
other hand, fields of liberal arts and English are more likely to provide relatively
general skills. Additionally, the cost of changing fields is lower for students
pursuing a degree offering general skills compared to students who have already
invested their time, money, and effort in a more specific field of study.

Research in the USA found that 54.8% of individuals reported that their
fields of study and careers were closely related while another 25.1% claimed that
they were somewhat related (Robst, 2007). Additionally, graduates from fields
offering general skills were found to switch careers more often. Among the fields
that showed low prevalence rates of careers switch were computer science,
health professions, library science, engineering, engineering technology,
architecture, and business management as was asserted by Dolton and Kidd
(1998). It was also reported that individuals with a master, professional, or
doctoral degree were less likely to be mismatched than those with a bachelor
degree (Boudarbat & Chernoff, 2012; Robst, 2007). This finding was also
congruent with Dolton and Kidd (1998) as the cost of switching careers after
completing a master or doctoral degree is very much higher. Lastly, Robst (2007)
also found that relatedness between students’ fields of study and career
decisions decreased with age.

Similarly, a study conducted in Canada found graduates who acquired a

general set of skills reported higher levels of mismatch (Boudarbat & Chernoff,
2012). They added that relatedness was reported highest among graduates in
the fields of health sciences and education. The fields with the least relatedness
were arts and humanities.

Hence, the following hypotheses were made:

H8 – Relatedness between field of study and career decision will be higher

among students who are enrolled in fields of study developing specific

19
occupation skills compared to students who are enrolled in fields of study
developing general skills.

H9 – Relatedness between field of study and career decision will be higher in

students who are enrolled in a master, professional, or doctoral degree
programme compared to students enrolled in a bachelor programme.

H10 – Relatedness between field of study and career decision decreases with age.

1.6 Summary of Hypotheses

This section recaps all the hypotheses investigated in this study. They are:

A. Culture
H1 – Collectivistic values will correlate more strongly with extrinsic factor
than will individualistic values.
H2 – Individualistic values will correlate more strongly with intrinsic factor
than will collectivistic values.
H3 – Collectivistic values will correlate more strongly with altruistic factors
than will individualistic values.
B. Significant others’ influence, culture, and gender
H4 – Collectivistic values will correlate more strongly with perceived
significant others’ influence when making a career decision than will
individualistic values.
H5 – Female students will perceive having more significant others’ influence
when deciding on their careers compared to male students.
H6 – Students of both genders will prefer asking their mothers/stepmothers
than fathers/stepfathers for career advices.
C. Significant Others’ Influence and CDSE
H7 – Significant others’ influence will be positively related to CDSE

20
D. Career decision and relatedness to field of study
H8 – Relatedness between field of study and career decision is more likely
among students who are enrolled in fields of study developing specific
occupation skills compared to students who are enrolled in fields of study
developing general skills.
H9 – Relatedness between field of study and career decision will be higher in
students who are enrolled in a master, professional, or doctoral degree
programme compared to students enrolled in a bachelor programme.
H10 – Relatedness between field of study and career decision decreases
with age.

1.7 Summary

This chapter provides an overview of current literature relevant to this

research. It has provided information on how students go about deciding on
their careers and the factors that may influence their decisions. In addition, this
chapter provides the study’s objectives, theoretical models upon which this
study is based, and hypotheses of this study. Sound rationale and reasoning
behind each hypothesis is included. The following chapter describes the method
adopted in this research.

21
 Chapter Two – Method

This chapter describes the method of this study. It is divided into several
sections. The first explains the criteria used to select participants and their
demographic characteristics. Secondly, the participant recruitment procedure is
described. Measures and their validity and reliability are also discussed. Lastly,
this chapter provides details on missing data substitution technique, data
transformation, and methods used to analyse the results of this study.

2.1 Participants

This study was open to full-time final year students studying at the
University of Waikato, regardless of their fields of study and qualifications. The
term ‘full-time students’ referred to students who were pursuing their
qualification on a full-time basis. At the University of Waikato, a full-time student
has a maximum workload of 120 points each academic year (University of
Waikato, 2014). The term ‘final year students’ was defined as students who
would complete their current qualification in the 2014 academic year.

Two hundred and two individuals opened the electronic link of the survey.
However, only 154 completed it, resulting in an initial response rate of 76.2%. A
further three (1.4%) responses were removed due to the participants not
completing one or more scales in the survey. Hence, the final sample consisted
of 151 participants, giving the study a final response rate of 74.8%.

The final sample comprised of 115 females (76.2%) and 36 males (23.8%).
The mean age was 27.60 with a standard deviation of 8.01, with three
participants (2.0%) not indicating their age. The range was 19 years old to 54
years old. The most prevalent ethnicity was New Zealand European (n = 72,
47.7%), followed by European (n = 25, 16.6%) and Asian (n = 21, 13.9%). The

22
remainder of the sample included Maori (n = 16, 10.6%), Pacific Peoples (n = 6,
4.0%), and other (n = 6, 4.0%). Five respondents (3.3%) did not specify their
ethnicity.

Participants were also asked to indicate the qualification they were

studying for and their field of study. Most of the respondents were studying
towards obtaining a bachelor degree (n = 78, 51.7%), followed by master degree
(n = 50, 33.1%). The remaining respondents indicated postgraduate diploma
(n = 13, 8.6%) and doctoral degree (PhD; n = 10, 6.6%). Many participants (n = 58,
38.4%) were pursuing qualifications offered by the Faculty of Arts and Social
Sciences (FASS), followed by the Faculty of Education (n = 33, 21.9%) and
Waikato Management School (WMS; n = 22, 14.6%). The remaining respondents
were attached to the Faculty of Computing and Mathematical Science (n = 21,
13.9%), Faculty of Science and Engineering (n = 9, 6.0%), and Faculty of Law
(n = 8, 5.3%).

2.2 Procedure

Data was collected via online questionnaire as it has many advantages.

Firstly, an online questionnaire has the ability to reach out to participants who
are geographically dispersed (Evans & Mathur, 2005). This strength was crucial
to this study as students were recruited during the university summer break,
when many of them were no longer required to be on campus. Additionally, an
online questionnaire is able to preserve participants’ anonymity and is time
efficient for both the researcher and participants (Evans & Mathur, 2005). For
the researcher, using an online survey minimises the time taken to get a
questionnaire into the field for data collection. For participants ease, an online
questionnaire allows them to complete it at their own time and pace. Finally,
another crucial advantage for deploying an online questionnaire is the ease of
data entry and analysis (Evans & Mathur, 2005).

23
 Participants for this study were recruited via e-mail and social media
websites such as Facebook. Invitations through e-mails were initially sent via the
University of Waikato’s Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS) administration
department. Low response rates prompted the need to acquire help from the
University of Waikato’s Student and Academic Services Division (SASD) to
distribute the e-mail invitations to a larger platform. On both occasions, similar
invitation e-mails were sent out (Appendix A, p. 71). The invitation e-mail
contained the criteria to participate in this study, its objectives, an estimated
amount of time needed to complete the survey, information about the nature of
participation in this study, and a link to the online questionnaire hosted by
Qualtrics (Appendix B, p. 72). Recruitment was also done via social media,
specifically Facebook, by posting a short description detailing the main aim of
this study, criteria to participate, and a link to the online questionnaire. The
posts were posted on several Facebook pages including University of Waikato’s
page. They were posted approximately once a week for one and a half months.

By clicking on the link, potential participants were first presented with an

information page informing them of the objectives of this study, estimated
amount of time needed to complete the questionnaire, criteria to participate,
giving consent to participate, confidentiality, and permission to withdraw from
this study (Appendix C, p. 79). Potential participants could then decide if they
would like to carry on and participate in this study. Upon completing the survey,
participants were then presented with a ‘thank you’ page, which thanked them
for their participation and provided them with information on how to obtain a
summary of the findings if they were interested in the results from this study
(Appendix D, p. 80).

2.3 Measures

The questionnaire consisted of 99 self-report items (Appendix B, p. 72).

These items were divided into five different sections, each measuring different

24
constructs needed to fulfil the objectives of this study. Each of the scales is
explained in the subsequent parts of this chapter.

2.3.1 Factors Influencing Career Decision

The first section contained 21 items, adapted with permission from

Sibson (2011) (Appendix B, p. 73). These items were used to identify the factors
(extrinsic, intrinsic, and/or altruistic) participants regarded as important when
making a career decision. Participants were asked to indicate the importance of
the factors when making a career decision based on a 5-point scale, in which
1 = very unimportant, 2 = unimportant, 3 = neither important nor unimportant,
4 = important, and 5 = very important. Sample items included “Good
graduate/starting salary”, “Interesting work”, “Opportunities to work closely with
other people”, and “Opportunities to influence other people”.

2.3.2 Cultural/Personal Values

The cultural and personal values scale was adapted with permission from
Shulruf, Hattie, and Dixon (2007) (Appendix B, p. 74). The scale contained 26
items measuring participants’ own cultural values – individualistic or collectivistic.
Participants were asked to indicate how often they would behave or think as
described in all 26 of the items based on a 6-point scale, where 1 = never or
almost never, 2 = rarely, 3 = occasionally, 4 = often, 5 = very often, and
6 = always. Examples of the items are “I define myself as a competitive person”,
“Before taking a major trip, I consult with my friends”, and “I ask the advice of my
friends before making career related decisions“.

According to Shulruf, Hattie, and Dixon (2007), items in the scale can be
categorised into two main groups, which are individualistic (15 items) and

25
collectivistic (11 items). Their factor analysis indicated that the items could be
further grouped into sub-categories, which are competitiveness, unique, and
responsibility for individualistic as well as advice and harmony for collectivistic
(Shulruf et al., 2007).

2.3.3 Career Behaviour Checklist

Items in the third scale were used to indicate whether respondents

perceived having influence from their significant others when making a career
decision. The scale contained 23 items adapted with permission from Keller and
Whiston (2008) (Appendix B, p. 75). As mentioned earlier, the term ‘significant
others’ includes biological parents, foster parents, and other caregivers.
Participants were asked to indicate if they perceived having influence based on a
5-point scale, in which 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, and
5 = very often. Examples of items in the scale are “Expresses interest in various
issues that are important to me”, “Has shown me where to find information
about universities or careers in the library or bookstore”, and “Helps me feel
better when I tell him/her I am worried or concerned about choosing a career”.
According to Keller and Whiston (2008), the items can be divided into two sub-
scales – psychosocial support (13 items) and career action items (10 items).

2.3.4 Career Decision Self-Efficacy Short Form (CDSE-SF)

The CDSE-SF was adapted with permission from Betz, Hammond, and
Multon (2005) and Betz and Klien (1996) (Appendix B, p. 76). The short version
was used as the long version contained too many items (50). Additionally, items
in the short version were adequate to achieve the objectives for this study. The
scale contained 25 items measuring “participants’ degree of belief that they can
successfully complete tasks necessary to making career decisions” (Betz & Taylor,

26
2006, p. 6). Participants were instructed to indicate their perceived self-efficacy
in making a career decision based on a 5-point scale, where 1 = no confidence at
all, 2 = very little confidence, 3 = moderate confidence, 4 = much confidence, and
5 = complete confidence. Sample items include “Use the internet to find
information about occupations that interest me”, “Make a plan of my goals for
the next five years”, and “Persistently work at my major or career goal even when
I get frustrated”. Items in the scale can be divided into five sub-scales, each with
5 items (Betz et al., 2005; Betz & Klein, 1996). They are self-appraisal,
occupational information, goal selection, planning, and problem solving.

2.3.5 Preferred Significant Other

To test Hypothesis 6 (Summary of Hypotheses, p. 20), the third section of

the questionnaire also featured an additional item asking participants to indicate
which person they would prefer to seek advice from in relation to making a
career decision (Appendix B, p. 75). Participants were given three choices –
mother/stepmother, father/stepfather, or other caregiver.

2.3.6 Career Decision and Relatedness to Field of Study

To test Hypotheses 8, 9, and 10 (Summary of Hypotheses, p. 20), a fifth

section was added into the questionnaire (Appendix B, p. 77). The section
contained four items. The first required participants to indicate their field of
study. The second ascertained the qualification participants were studying for.
The third item asked respondents if they had made a decision on the career they
would be interested in pursuing once they have completed their studies.
Respondents who indicated that they had indeed made a decision were shown
the fourth item, which asked if the career decision/career they have decided on
is related to their field of study.

27
2.4 Integrity of Measures

The integrity of the scales was measured using exploratory factor analysis
(Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21). Exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) was conducted using principal axis factoring and direct oblimin
rotation as the items were assumed to be correlated. Kaiser-Meyer Olkin (KMO)
measure of sampling adequacy value of 0.60 and above was used as an
indication that the data was suitable for factor analysis (George & Mallery, 2011).
Factor loading of 0.40 and above was accepted as the index of a significant
loading (George & Mallery, 2011). Reliability analysis was also conducted.
Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.70 and above was used as an indication that the
scale was reliable (George & Mallery, 2011).

2.4.1 Factors Influencing Career Decision

EFA was conducted on items in the Factors Influencing Career Decision

scale to determine if they grouped into three factors – extrinsic, intrinsic, and
altruistic. This is in accordance to the way the original author had used the scale
in her study (Sibson, 2011).

Initially, all 21 items in the scale were included in EFA and the scale was
revealed to have a KMO measure of sampling adequacy of 0.81. Bartlett’s test of
sphericity was significant (p < 0.01). These findings suggested that it was
appropriate to continue. Five factors with eigenvalues greater than one were
extracted. The scree plot also suggested retaining five factors for rotation
(Appendix F – Scree Plot (Initial), p. 82). The five factors retained explained
62.35% of the total variance. After the rotation, the factor loadings were
inspected and five factors loaded on all items except (5) Range/variety of career
opportunities, (8) Flexible hours of work, (11) Opportunities for promotion/

28
advancement, and (20) Availability of jobs. These four items that failed to load
were excluded from further analysis in this study.

EFA was conducted again on the remaining 17 items. The scale obtained
KMO measure of sampling adequacy of 0.80 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was
significant (p < 0.01). Five factors with eigenvalues greater than one were
extracted. The scree plot also suggested a five-factor solution. The five factors
retained explained 69.06% of the total variance. Upon rotation, two items failed
to load, thus were excluded from further analysis. They were items (4) Good
career opportunities and (14) Pleasant working conditions.

A third round of EFA was conducted on the remaining 15 items. The KMO
measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis (KMO = 0.78) and
Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (p < 0.01). Once again, five factors with
eigenvalues greater than one were extracted. The scree plot also suggested the
same. The five factors explained 71.84% of the total variance. After rotation,
factor loadings were inspected and all items loaded. However, Factor 5 loaded
on one item only. Hence, this item was deleted and dropped from subsequent
analysis in this study. This item was (6) Professional prestige/high status of future
career.

EFA was conducted for a fourth time and the KMO measure verified the
sampling adequacy for the analysis (KMO = 0.78). Bartlett’s test of sphericity was
significant (p < 0.01). Four factors with eigenvalues greater than one were
extracted. The scree plot also suggested a four-factor solution (Appendix F –
Scree Plot (Final), p. 82). The four factors retained explained 68.31% of the total
variance. After rotation, the four factors loaded cleanly onto all items. However,
the two items in Factor 3 were dropped as they do not seem to belong to the
same category. Additionally, their meanings were ambiguous, thus undermining
what the underlying items would mean. These items were (12) Opportunities for
travel and (13) Transferability of work skills. Additionally, item (21) Ability to
make a contribution to society was also deleted from Factor 1 because it did not
seem to belong with the other items. Based on previous research, item 21 should

29
belong to an altruistic group of items as it relates to service themes. However, all
the other items in Factor 1 apart from item 21 are related to intrinsic theme.

To summarise, 11 items were retained for further analysis in this study.

Three factors loaded cleanly onto the items. They are as follows:

a) Factor 1 – Intrinsic factors

3. Interesting work
15. Opportunities for creativity and originality
16. Enjoyable work
17. Responsibility involved in job
18. Challenging job

b) Factor 2 – Extrinsic factors

1. Good graduate/starting salary

2. Good future earnings potential
7. Standard hours of work (i.e. 9 to 5)
19. Job security

c) Factor 3 – Altruistic factors

9. Opportunities to work closely with other people
10. Opportunities to influence other people

In the original study, Sibson (2011) did not provide the sub-scales
reliability values. In this current study, the extrinsic, intrinsic, and altruistic sub-
scales attained Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.71, 0.85, and 0.84 respectively.

2.4.2 Cultural/Personal Values

EFA was conducted on items in the Cultural/Personal Values scale to

determine if they grouped into two factors – individualistic and collectivistic. This
is to conform to the way the items were classified by the original authors of the
scale (Shulruf et al., 2007).

30
 In the first round of EFA, the KMO measure verified the sampling
adequacy for the analysis (KMO = 0.79) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was
significant (p < 0.01). These results showed that it was appropriate to continue
EFA. Seven factors were extracted based on eigenvalues greater than one. The
scree plot also suggested a seven-factor solution (Appendix G – Scree Plot (Initial),
p. 83). The seven factors retained accounted for 69.91% of the total variance
explained. After rotation, factor loadings were inspected and the seven factors
loaded cleanly onto all items. However, three factors had only three items each.
Hence, these nine items were deleted and dropped from subsequent analysis.
These nine items were items number 23, 25, 30, 32, 33, 37, 40, 41, and 42
(Appendix B, p. 74).

A second round of EFA was conducted with the remaining 17 items. The
scale was revealed to have a KMO measure of sampling adequacy value of 0.81.
Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (p < 0.01). Four factors were extracted
based on eigenvalues greater than one. The scree plot also suggested the same
(Appendix G – Scree Plot (Final), p. 83). The four factors retained explained
68.59% of the total variance explained. Upon rotation, the four factors retained
loaded cleanly onto all items. When inspecting the pattern matrix, it was evident
that two of the factors contained individualistic items while the other two held
collectivistic items. Hence, a two-factor solution was forced. As predicted, the
factors combined accordingly upon rotation. Therefore, the two-factor solution
was justified. However, several items failed to load. They were items (38) It is
important for me to act as an independent person, (43) My personal identity
independent of others is very important to me, and (47) I see myself as “my own
person”. These items were excluded from further analysis in this study.

To conclude, 14 items were retained in the Cultural/Personal Values scale.

Two factors loaded cleanly onto the items. They are as follows:

a) Factor 1 – Individualistic values

22. I define myself as a competitive person
27. I believe that competition is a law of nature

31
 28. I prefer competitive rather than non-competitive recreational
activities
35. Without competition, I believe, it is not possible to have a good
society
44. I enjoy working in situations involving competitions with others
46. Winning is very important to me

b) Factor 2 – Collectivistic values

24. Before I make a major decision, I seek advice from people close to me
26. I consult with superiors on work-related matter
29. Before taking a major trip, I consult with my friends
31. I consider my friends’ opinions before taking important actions
34. It is important to consult close friends and get their ideas before
making a decision
36. I ask the advice of my friends before making career-related decision
39. I discuss job or study-related problems with my parents/partner
45. I consult my family before making an important decision

The individualistic and collectivistic sub-scales yielded 0.89 and 0.85

Cronbach’s alpha values respectively. Reliability values were not reported by
Shulruf et al. (2007).

2.4.3 Career Behaviour Checklist

EFA was conducted on all items in the Career Behaviour Checklist with
the aim of ensuring the validity of the measure. Initial EFA involving all 23 items
indicated the scale to have a KMO measure of sampling adequacy value of 0.86.
Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (p < 0.01). These findings suggested
that it was appropriate to continue EFA. Five factors with eigenvalues greater
than one were extracted. The scree plot also suggested a five-factor solution
(Appendix H – Scree Plot (Initial), p. 84). The five factors retained explained

32
67.71% of the total variance. After rotation, the factor loadings were inspected.
Two distinctive factors (supportive relationships and resources) loaded onto all
but one item. This item, which failed to load, was item (59) Has talked to me
about the steps involved in making difficult decisions. This item was excluded
from further analysis.

The remaining 22 items were subjected to further EFA. The KMO measure
verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis (KMO = 0.85) and Bartlett’s test
of sphericity was significant (p < 0.01). Five factors with eigenvalues one and
above were extracted. The scree plot suggested the same. The five factors
retained accounted for 69.02% of the total variance explained. Upon rotation,
the five factors retained loaded on all items apart from item (53) Has encouraged
me to consider many different educational and career options. Item 53 was
deleted from further analysis.

A third round of EFA was conducted on remaining 21 items and obtained

a KMO measure of sampling adequacy of 0.86. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was
significant (p < 0.01). Four factors with eigenvalues greater than one were
extracted and retained. This decision was supported by the scree plot as well.
The factors retained accounted for 65.31% of the total variance explained. Upon
rotation, factor loadings were inspected and the four factors loaded on all items.
However, Factor 4 loaded onto two items only. They were items (52) Tells me
he/she has high expectations for my career and (67) Asks what careers I am
considering for my future. These items were dropped from further analysis.

EFA was conducted again on the remaining items. The KMO measure
verified the sampling adequacy (KMO = 0.87) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was
significant (p < 0.01). Three factors with eigenvalues greater than one were
extracted. The scree plot suggested retaining three factors for rotation as well
(Appendix H – Scree Plot (Final), p. 84). The three factors retained accounted for
62.56% of the total variance explained. After rotation, the three factors loaded
cleanly onto all items. However, after examining the pattern matrix closely, items
from Factor 3 were excluded because they resembled a combination of items in

33
Factor 1 and 2. In other words, the four items did not seem to belong together
under one similar factor. These items were (61) Has encouraged me to be
involved in extra-curricular activities (sports, music, church), (62) Encourages me
to ask questions about different jobs, (65) Encourages me to try new things, and
(66) Encourages me to talk to him/her about my career plans. These items were
excluded from further analysis in this study.

To conclude, 15 items were retained in the Career Behaviour Checklist

scale. Two factors loaded cleanly onto the items. They are as follows:

a) Factor 1 – Supportive relationships

48. Expresses interest in various issues that are important to me.
51. Encourages me to make my own decisions.
55. Helps me feel better when I tell him/her I am worried or concerned
about choosing a career.
56. Really tries to understand my thoughts, feelings, and opinions about
various topics.
63. Tells me he/she loves me.
68. Encourages me to choose whatever career I want.
69. Tells me he/she is proud of me.
70. Has supported me when I have told him/her that I am interested in a
specific career.
b) Factor 2 – Resources
49. Has shown me where to find information about universities or careers
in the library or bookstore.
50. Has encouraged me to take interest assessments or career tests
offered by my school.
54. Tells me about specific careers.
57. Has given me written material about specific careers.
58. Has given me written material about specific universities.
60. Has participated with me in a structured career development
workshop offered by my school, church, etc.

34
 64. Has helped me understand results from career tests or interest
assessment I have taken.

The Cronbach’s alpha for the psychosocial support sub-scale obtained

0.90 while the career action sub-scale attained 0.89 (Keller & Whiston, 2008). In
this study, the sub-scales recorded 0.88 for supportive relationships and 0.90 for
resources. Items in the psychosocial support and supportive relationships sub-
scales were similar. Items in both the career action and resources sub-scales
were also similar.

2.4.4 Career Decision Self-Efficacy Short Form (CDSE-SF)

EFA was conducted on all items in the CDSE-SF with the aim of ensuring
the validity of the measure. The KMO measure verified the sampling adequacy
for the analysis (KMO = 0.91) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant
(p < 0.01). These results showed that it was appropriate to continue the analysis.
Four factors were extracted based on eigenvalues above one. However, the scree
plot clearly suggested that only one factor should be retained for rotation
(Appendix I – Scree Plot, p. 85). Furthermore, the eigenvalues difference
between the first and second factor was 9.74. The factor retained accounted for
45.06% of the total variance explained.

As only one factor was retained, rotation was not an option. As such, the
same single factor loaded onto all items with factors loadings of 0.40 and above.
No items were deleted from the scale as all of them had significant loadings.

The CDSE-SF was reported to have a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.93 for
the total scale (Betz & Taylor, 2006). In this current study, the CDSE-SF obtained
a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.95 for the total scale.

35
2.5 Missing Data Substitution and Data Transformation

Fourteen respondents had missing data in which no single participant had

more than 2.0% missing. To fill in the missing data, within-person mean
substitution was adopted (Roth, Switzer, & Switzer, 1999). Additionally,
descriptive statistics of the measures were analysed for skewness and kurtosis
values. As suggested by Kline (2011), data transformation is only required when
the skewness value is greater than three and the kurtosis value is greater than
eight. As none of the measures violated this general rule, no data transformation
was needed in this study.

2.6 Data Analyses for Results

To test Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7, Pearson’s correlation analysis was

used (Summary of Hypotheses, p. 20). Additionally, to test Hypotheses 5 and 10,
independent-samples t test analysis was conducted to check if mean differences
were significant. Lastly, Pearson’s chi-square analysis was adequate to test
Hypotheses 6, 8, and 9.

2.7 Summary

This chapter presents an overview of the participants’ selection criteria as

well as the method used in recruiting them. Additionally, it also explains the
measures used to collect data for this study. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and
reliability analysis results were included to show the integrity of the scales
deployed. Lastly, mean substitution, data transformation, and data analysis for
results methods were discussed. The following chapter provides the results of
this study.

36
 Chapter Three – Results

The first two sections of this chapter outline the descriptive statistics and
correlations between all scales. The following sections describe the results
relating to factors influencing career decision, significant others’ influence,
career decision self-efficacy (CDSE), and relatedness between field of study and
career decision. The analysis methods used to test the hypotheses are provided.
Supplementary findings are also reported. Finally, a brief summary of results is
presented at the end of this chapter.

3.1 Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 reports the means, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis

values of the measures used in this study.

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Skewness, and Kurtosis of Measures

Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis

Extrinsic factorsa 3.82 0.64 -0.91 2.14
Intrinsic factorsa 4.18 0.67 -1.47 3.60
Altruistic factorsa 3.63 0.93 -0.32 -0.47
Individualistic valuesb 3.26 1.09 0.38 -0.33
Collectivistic valuesb 3.71 0.89 -0.02 -0.27
Supportive relationshipsa 3.99 0.78 -0.66 -0.41
Resourcesa 2.31 0.99 0.56 -0.47
CDSEa 3.80 0.64 -0.14 -0.48
Response scales: a1-5 b1-6
CDSE: Career decision self-efficacy

Overall, participants reported higher levels of extrinsic (M = 3.82) and

intrinsic (M = 4.18) factors compared to altruistic factors (M = 3.63). To restate,
extrinsic factors include aspects that focus on instrumental resources, which are

37
separable from the meaning of work whereas intrinsic factors are aspects that
are linked directly to the job itself. Altruistic factors, on the contrary, are aspects
relating to service themes. The mean difference between extrinsic and altruistic
factors was significant (t (150) = 2.29, p < 0.05). The mean difference between
intrinsic and altruistic factors was also significant (t (150) = 8.36, p < 0.01). Finally,
the mean difference between extrinsic and intrinsic factors was also significant
(t (150) = -5.31, p < 0.01).

Respondents also reported higher collectivistic values (M = 3.71) in

comparison to individualistic values (M = 3.26). The mean difference was
significant (t (150) = -4.32, p < 0.01). In terms of perceived significant others’
influence, participants indicated that they had more supportive relationships
(M = 3.99) as opposed to resources (M = 2.31). To re-establish, supportive
relationships are defined as having encouraging and supportive relationships
with participants’ significant others. Resources, on the other hand, are defined as
help received from significant others to make career decisions. The mean
difference between supportive relationships and resources was significant
(t (150) = 18.03, p < 0.01). Respondents also reported moderate to high levels of
career decision self-efficacy (M = 3.80), which suggested they believed they are
able to successfully complete tasks necessary to make career decisions.

Relatively low to moderate standard deviation values for all scales

indicated that the scores were close to the mean values. Finally, as mentioned in
Chapter 2, according to Kline (2011) data transformation is only needed when
skewness value is greater than three and kurtosis value is greater than eight.
Therefore, based on Table 1, data transformation was not needed in this study.

3.2 Correlations and Cronbach’s Alpha Values of Measures

Correlations between all scales used in this study were conducted using
Pearson’s correlation analysis. Results are presented in Table 2.

38
Table 2
Correlations of Measures

Extrinsic factors

Intrinsic factors

Individualistic

relationships
Collectivistic

Supportive

Resources
Altruistic
factors

values

values

CDSE
Extrinsic factors 0.71

Intrinsic factors 0.15 0.85

Altruistic factors 0.23** 0.52** 0.84

Individualistic 0.01 0.17* 0.11 0.89

values
Collectivistic values 0.25** -0.07 0.29** 0.19* 0.85

Supportive 0.14 0.19* 0.21** 0.06 0.16 0.88

relationships
Resources 0.15 -0.11 0.07 0.33** 0.21* 0.19* 0.90

CDSE -0.01 0.40** 0.13 0.13 -0.10 0.25** 0.07 0.95

Significant levels: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01

CDSE: Career decision self-efficacy
Cronbach’s alpha values on the diagonal

Overall, correlation values ranged from moderate to high, with the lowest
being 0.17 (relationship between individualistic values and intrinsic factors) and
the highest being 0.52 (relationship between altruistic and intrinsic factors). Also
presented in Table 2 are Cronbach’s alpha values for each scale. According to
George and Mallery (2011), an alpha value of 0.70 and above indicates that a
scale is reliable to use. As shown in Table 2, all the scales in this study obtained
Cronbach’s alpha values greater than 0.70.

3.3 Factors Influencing Career Decision and Cultural Values

Three hypotheses were tested using Pearson’s correlation analysis.

Hypothesis 1 (H1) predicted that collectivistic values would correlate more

39
strongly with extrinsic factors than would individualistic values. It was found that
collectivistic values correlated significantly with extrinsic factors (r = 0.25,
p < 0.01) while individualistic values did not (r = 0.01). H1 was therefore
supported, which indicates that factors such as good starting salary, potential
future salary, and job security are deemed important to those with collectivistic
values.

As a result of this research, Hypothesis 2 (H2) was supported, that

individualistic values would correlate more strongly with intrinsic factors than
would collectivistic values. Pearson’s correlation analysis indicated that
individualistic values had a significant relationship with intrinsic factors (r = 0.17,
p < 0.05). However, there was no significant relationship between collectivistic
values and intrinsic factors (r = -0.07). These results suggest the importance of
job-related factors to individuals with individualistic values. Job-related factors
include interesting, challenging, and enjoyable work as well as opportunities for
creativity and originality.

Finally, Hypothesis 3 (H3) proposed that collectivistic values would

correlate more strongly with altruistic factors than would individualistic values.
H3 was also supported, with collectivistic values correlating significantly with
altruistic factors (r = 0.29, p < 0.01), while individualistic values and altruistic
factors did not correlate significantly (r = 0.11). These results imply that in
collectivistic societies where the self is more attached to the group, individuals
have a tendency to be more concerned with other members in their societies.
Hence, they regard factors such as the opportunities to influence others more
highly.

3.4 Significant Others’ Influence, Culture, and Gender

Three hypotheses were tested in this section. EFA conducted on the scale
measuring perceived influence of significant others’ revealed two separate

40
factors – supportive relationships (items investigating if participants perceived
having encouraging and supportive relationships with their significant others)
and resources (items investigating if participants perceived acquiring resources
from their significant others to help make their career decisions). All analyses
involving perceived significant others’ influence were done twice according to
the two factors. Hypothesis 4 (H4) was tested using Pearson’s correlation while
Hypothesis 5 (H5) was tested using independent-samples t test analyses.
Hypothesis 6 (H6) was tested with Pearson’s chi-square analysis.

H4 predicted that collectivistic values would correlate more strongly with

perceived significant others’ influence when making a career decision than would
individualistic values. H4 was not accepted, as there was no significant
relationship between both cultural values and supportive relationships.
Additionally, the difference between the correlations of both cultural values and
resources was non-significant. To explain further, collectivistic values and
supportive relationships did not correlate significantly (r = 0.16). There was also
no significant relationship between individualistic values and supportive
relationships (r = 0.06). On the other hand, both collectivistic (r = 0.21, p < 0.05)
and individualistic (r = 0.33, p < 0.01) values correlated significantly with
resources. The r values indicated individualistic values to correlate more strongly
with resources than collectivistic values. However, Hotelling’s t test (t = 1.20)
revealed that there was no significant difference between the correlations. These
results imply that students, regardless of the cultural values they may hold, will
seek help and advice from their significant others when making a career decision.

H5 proposed that female students would perceive having more significant

others’ influence when deciding on their careers compared to male students. As
mentioned earlier, H5 was tested using independent-samples t test. It is also
important to note that equal variances were not assumed when analysing the t
test results and as a result, degrees of freedom values had decimal places. Based
on the results of this study, H5 was partially supported as females perceived
having more supportive relationships than males but the opposite was found for
resources. To explain further, for supportive relationships, female respondents

41
perceived having more significant others’ influence
(M = 4.06, SD = 0.81) than male participants (M = 3.78, SD = 0.64). The gender
difference was significant (t (73.69) = -2.08, p < 0.05). For resources, male
respondents perceived having more resources (M = 2.58, SD = 0.85) than their
female counterparts (M = 2.23, SD = 1.02). This gender difference was also
significant (t (69.60) = 2.05, p < 0.05). These results suggest that females do not
necessarily perceive acquiring more advice when making a career decision.

Finally, H6 proposed that students of both genders would prefer to ask

their mothers/stepmothers than fathers/stepfathers for career advice.
Frequency analysis revealed that 95 respondents (62.9%) indicated that they
preferred referring to their mothers/stepmothers for career advice. Only 35
participants (23.2%) preferred their fathers/stepfathers. Another 19 respondents
(12.6%) reported referring to another type of caregiver, while two respondents
(1.3%) did not state who they preferred. To check for differences between
genders, Pearson’s chi-square analysis was conducted. No differences were
found, as both male (n = 20, 57.1%) and female (n = 75, 65.8%) respondents
preferred seeking advice from their mothers/stepmothers. Additionally,
Pearson’s chi-square analysis indicated the difference between the genders was
non-significant (χ2 (2) = 3.21). Based on these results, H6 was supported, which
suggests that mothers/stepmothers were preferred over fathers/stepfathers
when seeking career advice.

3.5 Significant Others’ Influence and Career Decision Self-

Efficacy (CDSE)

Only one hypothesis was tested in this section. As mentioned earlier,

analyses involving perceived significant others’ influence were done twice, based
on two separate factors – supportive relationships and resources. Hypothesis 7
(H7) predicted that significant others’ influence would be positively related to
CDSE and was only partially supported. The hypothesis was tested using

42
Pearson’s correlation analysis. Only the supportive relationships factor
correlated significantly with CDSE (r = 0.25, p < 0.01). The other factor, resources,
did not (r = 0.07). These results indicate that factors such as significant others
expressing their interest in issues important to students, as well as encouraging
and supporting students to make their own decisions, help develop students’
CDSE. As previously stated, CDSE in this study refers to “participants’ degree of
belief that they can successfully complete tasks necessary to making career
decisions” (Betz & Taylor, 2006, p. 6). Therefore, it is logical that students believe
in their abilities more strongly when they have the support, belief, and
encouragement from their significant others.

3.6 Relatedness between Field of Study and Career Decision

Three hypotheses were tested in this section. Hypothesis 8 (H8) and

Hypothesis 9 (H9) were tested using Pearson’s chi-square analysis. Hypothesis 10
(H10) was tested using independent-samples t test. H8 proposed that
relatedness between field of study and career decision was more likely among
students who were enrolled in fields of study developing specific occupation
skills compared to students who were enrolled in fields of study developing
general skills. Pearson’s chi square analysis revealed that 22 participants (48.9%)
enrolled in fields of study developing general skills indicated their career decision
to be related to their field of study and 23 (51.1%) said their career decision was
not related to their field of study. This indicated that the numbers of students in
general fields of study who responded ‘yes’ and ‘no’ were very similar. On the
other hand, of the 71 participants who were enrolled in fields of study
developing specific skills, 69 (97.2%) indicated that their career decision was
related to their field of study. These results suggest that perceptions of
relatedness were higher in fields of study developing specific skills. Moreover,
Pearson’s chi square analysis indicated the difference between general field of
study and specific field of study was significant, χ2 (1) = 38.00, p < 0.01. Based on

43
these findings, H8 was supported. These findings suggest the possibility that the
acquisition of general skills allows an individual to be more occupationally mobile
as the skills he or she obtained are transferable.

H9, that relatedness between field of study and career decision would be
higher in students who were enrolled in a master, professional, or doctoral
degree programme compared to students enrolled in a bachelor programme,
was also supported. Pearson’s chi square analysis found that 32 students (58.2%)
enrolled in a bachelor programme indicated that their career decision was
related to their field of study. Twenty-three students enrolled in a bachelor
programme (41.8%) indicated otherwise. This indicated that the numbers of
students indicating ‘yes’ and ‘no’ were very similar. In contrast, it was found that
a majority of students undertaking post-graduate programmes (which includes
master, professional, and doctoral degree programmes) indicated their career
decision to be related to their field of study (n = 59, 96.7%). Only two
respondents (3.3%) indicated otherwise. This highlighted that a greater number
of students would pursue careers that were related to their fields of study when
they are enrolled in higher qualifications. Additionally, Pearson’s chi-square
analysis revealed that the difference between students in bachelor programmes
and post-graduate programmes was significant, χ2 (3) = 25.60, p < 0.01. These
results suggest the possibility that as individuals pursue higher degrees in one
field, the chances of them seeking a career in the same field increase. This is
reasonable, as the individual would have spent a lot of effort, time, and money
acquiring knowledge in the particular field.

Finally, H10, that relatedness between field of study and career decision
would decrease with age, was not supported. As noted in H5, equal variances
were not assumed when analysing t test results, thus degrees of freedom values
had decimal places. Students who indicated their career decision to be related
with their field of study were older (M = 29.51, SD = 8.63) compared to students
who indicated otherwise (M = 25.16, SD = 6.71). This difference in mean age was
found to be significant (t (48.86) = 2.67, p < 0.05). These results imply that older
students are more likely to seek a career in a field similar to their field of study.

44
Furthermore, older students were more likely to enrol in post-graduate
programmes and, as mentioned earlier, students in post-graduate programmes
were more likely to seek a career in the same field.

3.7 Supplementary Findings

This section describes results that are supplementary to the hypotheses

tested in this study. These results were undertaken to examine further
relationships relevant to this research and may be of interest to other
researchers.

a) Relationships between factors influencing career decision

Altruistic factors correlated significantly with both extrinsic (r = 0.23,
p < 0.01) and intrinsic (r = 0.52, p < 0.01) factors. Hotelling’s t test
(t = 2.74, p < 0.01) revealed that there was a significant difference
between the correlations. The results indicated that altruistic factors
correlated more strongly with extrinsic factors than with intrinsic factors.
However, the relationship between extrinsic and intrinsic factors was
non-significant (r = 0.15). These results imply that individuals, who have
strong values in one area, may have strong values in another area as well.
b) Relationship between cultural values
Pearson’s correlation analysis revealed a significant relationship between
individualistic and collectivistic values (r = 0.19, p < 0.05). This result
suggests the possibility that individuals do not just develop individualistic
or collectivistic values alone.
c) Relationships between cultural values and career decision self-efficacy
(CDSE)
There was no significant relationship between individualistic values and
CDSE (r = 0.13). Additionally, collectivistic values and CDSE also did not
correlate significantly (r = -0.10). These findings suggest that cultural
values do not affect students’ self-efficacy in making career decisions.

45
 d) Relationship between perceived significant others’ influence
As mentioned previously, two separate factors loaded onto the items
measuring perceived significant others’ influence. They were supportive
relationships and resources. Pearson’s correlation analysis indicated a
significant relationship between the two (r = 0.19, p < 0.05). The result
implies that students who perceived having supportive relationships with
their significant others may also perceive getting resources from them to
help make their career decisions.

3.8 Summary

To summarise the results, collectivistic values correlated significantly with

both extrinsic and altruistic factors. Individualistic values correlated significantly
with intrinsic factors. Additionally, both cultural values did not correlate with
supportive relationships. They correlated with resources but there was no
significant difference between the correlations. Female participants perceived
having higher levels of encouraging and supportive relationships with their
significant others than did male respondents. On the contrary, male respondents
believed they received more resources from their significant others when making
a career decision than did their female counterparts. Independent-samples t test
analysis revealed the mean differences between genders on both supportive
relationships and resources to be significant.

Furthermore, it was found that participants preferred seeking career

advice from their mothers/stepmothers compared to their fathers/stepfathers. It
was also found that only supportive relationships correlated significantly with
career decision self-efficacy (CDSE). Finally, relatedness between career decision
and field of study increased with age and was higher in students enrolled in a
field of study developing specific skills and in students pursuing post-graduate
qualifications. The following chapter provides further discussion of the results
reported in this chapter.

46
 Chapter Four – Discussion

This study investigated students’ career intentions upon completing their

studies and there were four main objectives. The first was to ascertain if students
seek careers related to their field of study. Secondly, this research investigated
the relationship between factors students relied upon when deciding on their
careers and cultural values. Specifically to this objective, three groups of factors
were included in this study – extrinsic (factors that focused on instrumental
resources that are separable from the meaning of work), intrinsic (aspects linked
directly to the job itself), and altruistic (aspects related to service themes). In
relation to cultural values, this study included both individualistic and
collectivistic values. Thirdly, this study investigated if students perceived
receiving significant others’ influence when making a career decision. Within this
objective, two factors emerged in the scale measuring perceived significant
others’ influence – supportive relationships and resources. Finally, this study also
ascertained if perceived significant others’ influence helped build students’ self-
efficacy in making career decisions.

To collect the data needed for this study, an online survey was employed
and invitations to participate were sent out to full-time students who were in the
final year of study to complete their qualification. This chapter revisits the main
findings of this study before discussing practical implications relating to the
findings. The strengths and limitations of this study are presented, followed by
suggestions for future research in the same field. Finally, a conclusion will
summarise the study and its findings.

4.1 Main Findings and Implications

This study proposed and tested 10 hypotheses. Of the 10, six were fully
supported, two hypotheses were partially supported and the remaining two

47
hypotheses were unsupported. The next sections discuss the main findings of
this study as well as their implications.

4.1.1 Factors Influencing Career Decision and Cultural Values

Many previous studies have found similar results to this present study in
relation to factors affecting students’ career decisions (Auyeong & Sands, 1997;
Jaw et al., 2006; Marini et al., 1996; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Ng et al., 2008;
Oishi et al., 1999; Stone et al., 2005). This study proposed three hypotheses
concerning factors affecting students’ career decisions. Hypotheses 1 (H1) and 3
(H3) predicted that collectivistic values would correlate more strongly with
extrinsic and altrusitic factors than would individualistic values respectively.
Hypothesis 2 (H2) proposed that individualistic values would correlate more
strongly with intrinsic factors than would collectivistic values. All three
hypotheses were supported, as only collectivistic values correlated significantly
with both extrinsic and altruistic factors. Only individualistic values correlated
significantly with intruistic factors.

The results from H1 and H3 suggest that aspects such as good starting
salary, potential future salary, standard hours of work, and job security (extrinsic
factors) as well as the opportunity to work closely with others and opportunity to
influence other people (altruistic factors) to be important to individuals with
collectivistic values. On the contrary, the findings of H2 indicate the importance
of job-related factors to individuals with individualistic values, which include
interesting, enjoyable, and challenging work as well as opportunities for
creativity, originality, and responsibility at work.

According to Markus and Kitayama (1991), the achievement motive is

very important for individuals with collectivistic values and it relates to filial piety.
To restate, filial piety can be defined as “to respect one’s parents and to care for
one’s parents” (Sung, 1995, p. 240). The achievement motive can be fulfilled by

48
gaining prestige at work, which includes earning a good salary. By doing so,
individuals are able to enhance the social standing of their families, thus fulfilling
one aspect of their filial piety responsibilities. Similarly, Auyeung and Sands
(1997) found that students in Hong Kong and Taiwan universities obtained higher
mean scores for availability of employment, prestige, and social status compared
to students in Australian universities. In their study, students in Hong Kong and
Taiwan universities were classified as individuals with collectivistic values
whereas Australian students were classified as individuals with individualistic
values. Stone et al. (2005) found that individuals who hold collectivistic values
regard factors such as spending time with their families and time off work highly,
thus they prefer jobs with standard hours of work. The authors added that
collectivistic values correlate with familism. Familism is defined as “a value
characterised by strong identification and attachment to the family and strong
feelings of loyalty, reciprocity, and solidarity with family members” (Stone et al.,
2005, p. 10). Thus, in Stone et al. (2005), it was found that individuals who hold
collectivistic values prefer jobs that offer a balance between family and work life.
Moreover, research on work-family balance found that individuals from
collectivistic countries are more likely to believe that their family takes
precedence over their work roles (Aryee, Srinivas, & Tan, 2005).

With regards to the significant relationship between collectivistic values

and altruistic factors, Markus and Kitayama (1991) noted that Hispanic
Americans (a society thought to hold collectivistic values), described the
significance and importance of ‘simpatico’ highly. The term ‘simpatico’ refers to
the ability to share and respect other individuals’ feelings. They further stated
that the same applies to individuals from countries such as the Phillipines,
Thailand, and Japan. Markus and Kitayama (1991) asserted that due to being
interdependent, these individuals are more likely to sympathise with others.
Similar findings were reported by Marini et al. (1996) and Ng et al. (2008). The
findings of the studies, including this one, suggest that altruistic factors are
important to people with collectivistic values because they are more likely to

49
feel sensitive to the needs of others, which develops the motivation to help
others or contribute to society.

As stated previously, only individualistic values correlated significantly

with intrinsic factors. Oishi et al. (1999) explained that people who hold values of
individualism are more likely to weigh satisfaction with esteem needs such as
power to make decisions and self-respect. Furthermore, Stone et al. (2005)
noted that individuals with individualistic values are more likely to prefer jobs
that would allow them to compete with others competitively to gain
achievement.

4.1.2 Significant Others’ Influence, Culture, and Gender

Three hypotheses are discussed in this section. The first is Hypothesis 4

(H4), that collectivistic values would correlate more strongly with perceived
significant others’ influence when making a career decision than would
individualistic values, was not accepted. As mentioned earlier, perceived
significant others’ influence contained two factors – supportive relationships and
resources. The relationships between both cultural values and supportive
relationships were non-significant. In contrast, both cultural values were
significantly correlated with resources. However, there was no significant
difference between the correlations. These results were dissimilar to the results
reported in previous studies by Leong and Hardin (2002), Leong and Serafica
(1995), Ma and Yeh (2005), and Tang et al., (1999).

According to Leong and Hardin (2002), students in collectivistic societies

place and experience high levels of family involvement when making career
decisions. They further stated that significant others’ usually believe that only
certain careers would lead their dependents to achieve success. The careers are
usually in the fields of medicine, law, and engineering. Ma and Yeh (2005) noted
similar results in Chinese American youths. It was also found that individuals in

50
collectivistic societies are more attached to the group compared to individuals in
individualistic societies. Triandis et al. (1988) provided a similar argument.
According to their perspective, individuals in collectivistic societies prefer to
subordinate their personal goals to in-group goals as opposed to those in
individualistic societies in which the self is more autonomous and separate.
Additionally, it was found that family involvement and feedback in career
planning have a strong impact on Asian American college students (Tang et al.,
1999). Leong and Serafica (1995) also found that there is stronger significant
others’ influence in Asian American families in comparison to European
American families.

Based on the preceding arguments, it was concluded that collectivistic

values would increase the perception of significant others’ influence, however,
the results of this study did not support this notion. The findings suggest the
possibility that students, regardless of their cultural values, will seek help and
advice from their significant others when making a career decision due to the
nature of the process. A process which can be very daunting and challenging, as
choosing the wrong career may negatively affect other aspects of a person’s life,
which includes home life, health, and relationships (Pavlina, 2007). Furthermore,
making a career decision is a very important decision for students, due to it
occurring at a stage in their life, which is significant in their identity development
(Roach, 2010).

Hypothesis 5 (H5) proposed that female students would perceive having

more significant others’ influence when deciding on their careers compared to
male students. This hypothesis was partially accepted, as only females perceived
having more supportive relationships with significant others’ while male
participants perceived having more resources. The results of this current study
differed from the findings of Otto (2000). In his research, it was found that
females reported having more discussions about their career decisions with their
families than males. Findings of this current study, however, suggest that
females do not necessarily perceive having more significant others’ influence
when making a career decision, and as discussed earlier, the process of deciding

51
on a career is a difficult one. On that basis, perhaps both genders perceived
having influence from their significant others. In addition, more in-depth
analyses (paired-samples t test between genders, supportive relationships, and
resources) revealed that both genders perceived having more supportive
relationships than resources.

Finally, Hypothesis 6 (H6) predicted that students of both genders would

prefer asking their mothers/stepmothers than fathers/stepfathers for career
advice and was supported. This finding corresponds with the results of Otto
(2000), who also indicated that mothers are more helpful when discussing career
plans. Otto (2000) argued that of the two, mothers were found to be more
understanding and nurturing towards their children compared to fathers. This
result was not particularly surprising, as Carlson and Knoester (2011) reported
that “mothers are typically the primary caregivers and socialising agents in a
variety of family structures” (p. 711).

4.1.3 Significant Others’ Influence and Career Decision Self-

Efficacy (CDSE)

Career decision self-efficacy (CDSE) refers to “self-efficacy expectancies in

relation to the wide range of behaviours necessary to the career choice and
adjustment process” (Betz & Luzzo, 1996, p. 280). The inclusion of CDSE in this
study was to determine if significant others’ influence would benefit students.
The term self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief in his or her capability to
perform a task or behaviour successfully (Bandura, 1978). Bandura (1978) also
stated that an individual’s self-efficacy can be modified through verbal
persuasion such as receiving encouragement and support from others. Hence,
Hypothesis 7 (H7) predicted that significant others’ influence would be positively
related to CDSE. However, in these findings it was only partially supported, as
only supportive relationships correlated significantly with CDSE. Nonetheless, the

52
findings of this study were still congruent with results found by Gecas and Seff
(1990), Keller and Whiston (2008), and O’Brien et al. (2000).

The authors of the scale used to measure perceived significant others’

influence in this study, Keller and Whiston (2008), found that both supportive
relationships and resources correlated significantly with CDSE. However, they
also indicated that based on the strengths of the correlations and size of the beta
weights, supportive relationships could have been more important than
resources. Similarly, Gecas and Seff (1990) reported that young adolescents
believe in their own career decision-making abilities only to the degree to which
they deemed their significant others believe in them. Additionally, being
attached to caregivers led to increased confidence in career-related tasks
(O’Brien et al., 2000).

The findings of this research and the preceding studies are not surprising
as it is a logical argument that individuals will believe in their abilities more
strongly when they receive the encouragement and support from their
significant others. Moreover, it was argued that young adolescents’ self-efficacy
increases when their caregivers believe in their abilities, show interest in them as
individuals, and trust them to make good decisions (Keller & Whiston, 2008).
Furthermore, the concept of significant others’ having an important impact on
their dependents’ CDSE has been demonstrated empirically in literature (Bright
et al., 2005; Hinkleman & Luzzo, 2007; Palmer, 1988; Peterson, Stivers, & Peters,
1986; Roach, 2010; Sebald, 1989). Finally, Bush (2008) indicated that significant
others’ influence is related to the overall self-esteem of adolescence.

4.1.4 Relatedness between Field of Study and Career Decision

This section addresses three hypotheses; two of them were supported

while the third was not. Hypothesis 8 (H8) proposed that relatedness between
field of study and career decision was more likely among students who were

53
enrolled in fields of study developing specific occupation skills compared to
students who were enrolled in fields of study developing general skills. Findings
in this study confirmed H8, as a majority of students enrolled in fields developing
specific skills indicated their career decisions to be related to their field of study.
Fields of study covered in this research pertaining to the development of specific
skills included law, education, and computer graphic design. On the other hand,
the numbers of students in general fields of study who indicated ‘yes’ and ‘no’
were similar. General fields of study included in this research were sports and
leisure, tourism, psychology, and social sciences. These results duplicated the
findings from Boudarbat and Chernoff (2012), Dolton and Kidd (1998), and Robst
(2007). When students select a field of study that contributes to the attainment
of general skills, instead of specific skills, the chances of them switching to a
different field when choosing a career increases (Dolton & Kidd, 1998). According
to Robst (2007), students switch because the acquisition of general skills enables
them to be occupationally mobile as the skills are transferable. He added that
“general skills transfer to jobs in other fields; while only a portion of occupation
specific skills are likely to transfer” (p. 400). Robst (2007) also argued that the
cost of changing fields is lower for students in general fields of study.

Hypothesis 9 (H9) predicted that relatedness between the field of study

and career decision would be higher in students who were enrolled in a master,
professional, or doctoral degree programme when compared to students
enrolled in a bachelor programme. The aforementioned degree programmes
were categorised as post-graduate qualifications and it was found that all but
two students pursuing post-graduate qualifications indicated that their career
decisions were related to their fields of study. The numbers of students in
bachelor programmes who indicated ‘yes’ and ‘no’ were very similar. These
results suggest the possibility that as individuals progress further into a particular
field, the likelihood of them seeking employment in the similar field increases.
This is reasonable given that they would have spent a lot of time, effort, and
money acquiring knowledge in a particular field. Similar findings were found by
Boudarbat and Chernoff (2012), Dolton and Kidd (1988) and Robst (2007). They

54
too argued that because the cost of switching fields after completing a post-
graduate qualification is higher, the likelihood of relatedness increases. Based on
the preceding argument, H9 was supported.

The final hypothesis, Hypothesis 10 (H10), which proposed that

relatedness between field of study and career decision would decrease with age,
was not supported. It was found that students who indicated their career
decisions to be related to their fields of study were older compared to students
who indicated otherwise. This finding differed from the results obtained by Robst
(2007). However, the results obtained in this study are not entirely surprising as
older students are more likely to be in a post-graduate programme and, as
mentioned earlier, students pursuing post-graduate qualifications reported
higher levels of relatedness due to effort, time, and money spent.

4.2 Strengths

The major strength of this research is that it seems to be one of the few
studies which did not limit its participants to a certain field of study. Many
previous studies investigated only a single field of study, for example, Kyriacou
and Coulthard (2000), Yong (1995), and Young, B. (1995). These studies focussed
their research on teacher trainees in the United Kingdom (UK), Brunei
Darussalam, and the USA respectively. Other studies, such as those of Dockery
and Barns (2005) and Lawrence and Poole (2001) researched nursing and
medical students. Some other instances include Shaw (2005), who investigated
students in mortuary science, Gokuladas (2009), who researched career decision-
making processes of students pursuing the field of engineering, and Sibson
(2011), who did her study with undergraduates enrolled in event, sport, and
recreation management programmes. The inclusion of students from different
fields of study contributed to the ability of this current study to examine factors
affecting career choices of students in various fields. It also allowed this current
study to explore the relatedness between field of study and career decision.

55
 Additionally, many previous studies focused solely on factors (extrinsic,
intrinsic, and altruistic) influencing students’ career decision-making alone
whereas this current study included further elements. These elements included
the investigation of the relationship between cultural values and the factors
affecting students’ career decisions and the impact of perceived significant
others’ influence on students’ career decision self-efficacy (CDSE). This allowed
this study to ascertain if cultural values affected students’ career decision as well
as identify the relationship between influence of significant others and students’
confidence and ability in making a career decision. A further point of difference
to the above studies is that the focus of this study was on tertiary students in
New Zealand. This may address the shortage of studies on factors affecting
students’ career choices in New Zealand as many other studies have focused on
students in the USA, UK, Australia, and Asian countries. To my knowledge, there
are only two articles investigating career decision-making among students in
New Zealand (Lawrence & Poole, 2001; Lawrence, Poole, & Diener, 2003).

In relation to the strengths of the measures used in this study, all

measures used obtained sound psychometric properties including high reliability
values. To conclude, this study restricted participation to full-time students, who
were in their final year. By restricting participation to full-time students only, the
study was able to collect data from students who do not already have a career.
Hence, their responses were not affected by experiences in established careers.
By limiting participation to students in their final year of study, the researched
managed to acquire responses from students who were more certain with
making a career decision.

4.3 Limitations

One methodological limitation involved the use of self-report measures

for all constructs, which can result in common method variance (CMV)
(Breakwell, Smith, & Wright, 2012; Lindell & Whitney, 2001). Lindell and Whitney

56
(2001) added that self-report measures can cause CMV due to participants’
magnified ratings especially in scales targeting performance and ability. Hence,
this limitation could be specifically applied to the CDSE-SF scale. In spite of that,
this issue is sometimes overestimated (Lindell & Whitney, 2001; Spector, 2006).
Additionally, CMV could not explain the data entirely because the measures in
this study confirmed a wide range of correlation values.

Recruiting respondents also posed several challenges as data collection

was carried out during the university summer break, with the possibility that
many students were on holiday. A larger response rate might have strengthened
the validity of this study as well as increased the generalisability of the results.
The results of this study may not have equally represented the New Zealand
population as the final sample of this study consisted of 76.2% females and
23.8% males. The participation rate pertaining to ethnicity does not accurately
represent the New Zealand population with 10.6% of participants identifying as
Maori and 13.9% as Asian. According to Statistics New Zealand (2014), the New
Zealand population indicates that 14.9% of people identify as Maori and 11.8%
identify as Asian. Finally, this study was based on a cross-sectional research
design. Hence, the findings cannot be used to determine causal directions
between the variables.

4.4 Future Research

Future studies can investigate the factors influencing students’ career

decisions in different countries and compare the results to ascertain the
similarities and differences. The results can also be compared to each country’s
national culture to see identify if there is a relationship between factors
influencing students’ career decisions and national culture.

Further research could also take a longitudinal approach to ascertain if

relatedness between field of study and career decision is indeed higher in

57
students pursuing specific fields of study compared to students enrolled in a field
of study developing general skills. A longitudinal approach can also provide more
concrete evidence if relatedness is truly higher in students enrolled in post-
graduate programmes (master, professional, or doctoral) in contrast to students
in bachelor programmes. Furthermore, a longitudinal study would be able to
investigate the trend of job-hopping in students from different fields of study.
Future studies could also include more fields of study such as human resource,
medicine, and nursing.

Finally, future research could also take a cross-generational approach to

investigate if students in the Gen Y and Gen X generations decide on their
careers based on similar or different factors. Acar (2014) found that there were
no differences in extrinsic and intrinsic motivation between Gen X and Gen Y
employees in a Turkish bank. On the other hand, Smola and Sutton (2002) found
that work values change as employees’ age increased, which suggests that there
would be differences between individuals of Gen Y and Gen X generations.

4.5 Implications for Tertiary Institutions and Organisations

From a tertiary institution’s point of view, the results from this study
provide some insight as to how students decide on their career paths. Although
the results may not be generalised to the entire population, knowing the factors
that influence students’ career choices can still enable the institution to focus on
tailoring their teaching to meet the needs and wants of the students. At an
organisational level, this study also allows organisations to learn about the
factors that are important to their future employees. This information can then
be used in their recruitment programmes. Finally, results of this study can also
benefit career counsellors as the findings revealed factors that are important to
students when deciding on their careers. With this knowledge, career counsellors
may be able to use these factors as part of the criteria they use to provide better
advice and guidance to their clients.

58
4.6 Conclusion

This study investigated New Zealand tertiary students’ career intentions

upon completing their studies and the factors influencing their decisions. The
first objective was to investigate if students would seek employment relating to
their fields of study. It was found that relatedness was higher in students
enrolled in fields of study developing specific skills and in students pursuing post-
graduate qualifications. It was also revealed that relatedness increased with age.
The second objective ascertained the relationship between factors students
relied on when making a decision about their choice of career and the role of
cultural values. It was found that collectivistic values correlated with extrinsic
and altruistic factors while individualistic values correlated with intrinsic factors.
Thirdly, the study investigated if students perceived receiving significant others’
influence when deciding on their careers. It was ascertained that cultural values
had no significant impact on perceived significant others’ influence. It was also
revealed that there were no gender differences in relation to the perception of
influence from significant others. In addition to this, when seeking career advice,
both genders preferred their mothers/stepmothers over fathers/stepfathers. The
final aim of the study investigated the relationship between perceived significant
others’ influence and career decision self-efficacy. It was found that only
supportive relationships increased students’ career decision self-efficacy.

59
 References
Acar, A. (2014). Do intrinsic and extrinsic motivation factors differ for Generation
X and Generation Y? International Journal of Business and Social Science,
5(5), 12-20. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.
waikato.ac.nz/docview/1530214741?pq-origsite=summon.

Aryee, S., Srinivas, E., & Tan, H. (2005). Rhythms of life: Antecedents and
outcomes of work-family balance in employed parents. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(1), 132-146. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.132.

Auyeong, P., & Sands, J. (1997). Factors influencing accounting students' career
choice: A cross-cultural validation study. Accounting Education, 6(1), 13-
23. doi: 10.1080/096392897331596.

Bandura, A. (1978). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change.

Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1, 139-161. doi:
10.1016/0146-6402(78)90002-4.

Betts, J. (1996). What do students know about wages? Evidence from a survey of
undergraduates. The Journal of Human Resources, 31(1), 27-56. doi:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/146042 .

Betz, N., & Hackett, G. (1986). Applications of self-efficacy theory to

understanding career choice behaviour. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 4(3), 279-289. doi: 10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.279.

Betz, N., & Klein, K. (1996). Relationships among measures of career self-efficacy,
generalised self-efficacy, and global self-esteem. Journal of Career
Assessment, 4(3), 285-298. doi: 10.1177/106907279600400304.

Betz, N., & Luzzo, D. (1996). Career assessment and the Career Decision Self-
Efficacy scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4(4), 413-428. doi:
10.1177/106907279600400405.

Betz, N., & Taylor, K. (2006). Manual for the Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale
and CDSE - Short Form. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.

60
Betz, N., Hammond, M., & Multon, K. (2005). Reliability and validity of response
continua for the Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career
Assessment, 13(2), 131-149. doi: 10.1177/1069072704273123.

Bluestein, D., Walbridge, M., Friedlander, M., & Palladino, D. (1991).

Contributions to psychological separation and parental attachment to the
career development process. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(1), 39-
50. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.38.1.39.

Boudarbat, B., & Chernoff, V. (2012). Education-job match among recent

Canadian university graduates. Applied Economics Letters, 19(18), 1923-
1926. doi: 10.1080/13504851.2012.676730.

Breakwell, G., Smith, J., & Wright, D. (2012). Research methods in psychology. Los
Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Bright, J., Pryor, R., Wilkenfield, S., & Earl, S. (2005). The role of social context
and serendipitous events in career decision making. International Journal
for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 5, 19-36. doi: 10.1007/s10775-
005-2123-6.

Bush, K. (2008). Separatedness and connectedness inthe parents-adolescent

relationship as predictors of adolescent self-esteem in US and Chinese
samples. Marriage & Family Review, 30, 153-178. doi: 10.1300
/J002v30n01_10.

Careers New Zealand. (2012). Donald Super developmental self-concept.

Retrieved from http://www.careers.govt.nz/fileadmin/docs/career_
theory_model_super.pdf

Carlson, D., & Knoester, C. (2011). Family structure and the intergenerational
transmission of gender ideology. Journal of Family Issues, 32(6), 709-734.
doi: 10.1177/0192513X10396662.

Chuene, K., Lubben, F., & Newson, G. (1999). The views of pre‐service and novice
teachers on mathematics teaching in South Africa related to their

61
 educational experience. Educational Research, 41(1), 23-34. doi:
10.1080/0013188990410103.

Coupland, C. (2004). Career definition and denial: A discourse analysis of

graduate trainees' accounts of career. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
64(3), 515-532. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2003.12.013.

Dockery, A., & Barns, A. (2005). Who'd be a Nurse? Some evidence on career
choice in Australia. Australiam Bulletin of Labour, 31(4), 350-383.
http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/documentSummary
;dn=010987174065369;res=IELBUS.

Dolton, P., & Kidd, M. (1998). Job changes, occupational mobilty, and human
capital acquisition: An empirical analysis. Bulletin of Economic Research,
50(4), 265-295. doi: 10.1111/1467-8586.00065.

Evans, J., & Mathur, A. (2005). The value of online surveys. Internet Research,
15(2), 195-219. doi:10.1108/10662240510590360.

Feldman, D. (1996). The nature, antecedents, and consequences of

underemployment. Journal of Management, 22 (3), 385-407. doi: 10.1177
/014920639602200302.

Fisher, T., & Padmawidjaja, I. (1999). Parental influences on career development

perceived by African American and Mexican American college students.
Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 27(3), 136-152.
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/docview/235996576/f
ulltextPDF?accountid=17287.

Gecas, V., & Seff, M. (1990). Families and adolescents: A review of the 1980s.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 52(4), 941-958. http://www.
jstor.org/stable/353312.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2011). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide
and reference 18.0 update (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.

62
Gokuladas, V. (2010). Factors that influence first-career choice of undergraduate
engineers in software services companies: A south Indian experience.
Career Development International, 15(2), 144-166. doi: 10.1108/
13620431011040941.

Hahs-Vaughn, D. (2004). The impact of parents’ education level on college

students: An analysis using the beginning post-secondary students
longitudinal study 1990-92/94. Journal of College Student Development,
45(5), 483-500. doi: 10.1353/csd.2004.0057.

Hair, J. (2005). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall.

Harrington, L., & Liu, J. (2002). Self enhancement and attitudes toward high
achievers: A bicultural view of the independent and interdependent self.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(1), 37-55. doi: 10.1177/
0022022102033001003.

Hernandez, T. (1995). The career trinity: Puerto Rican college students and their
striggle for identity and power. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and
Development, 23(2), 103-115. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.
waikato.ac.nz/ehost/detail?vid=6&sid=c00a2dea-e10d-4e78-ab15-2d7c3
51cddd4%40sessionmgr111&hid=120&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2Z
Q%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=9504271261.

Hinkelman, J., & Luzzo, D. (2007). Mental health and career development of
college students. Journal of counseling & Development, 85(2), 143-147.
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/docview/218961246?
accountid=17287.

Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organisational practices and

theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2), 75-89. doi:
10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490867.

Holden, N. (2002). Cross-cultural management: A knowledge management

perspective. Harlow, England: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

63
Jaw, B., Wang, C., Ling, Y., & Chang, W. (2006). Cross-cultural determinants of
Chinese employees' work values. Asia Pacific Management Review, 11(2),
73-81. http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/docview/111
5904896?accountid=17287.

Keller, B., & Whiston, S. (2008). The role of parental influences on young
adolescents' career development. Journal of Career Assessment, 16(2),
198-217. doi: 10.1177/1069072707313206.

King, P., & Howard-Hamilton, M. (2000). Using student development theory to

inform institutional research. New Directions for Institutional Research,
108, 19-35. doi: 10.1002/ir.10802.

Kline, R. (2011). Principles and practices of structural equation modelling (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Kyriacou, C., & Coulthard, M. (2000). Undergraduates' views of teaching as a

career choice. Journal of Education for Teaching, 26(2), 117-126. doi:
10.1080/02607470050127036.

Lawrence, J., & Poole, P. (2001). Career and life experiences of New Zealand
women medical graduates. New Zealand Medical Journal, 114, 537-540.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/
docview/1143313927?accountid=17287#.

Lawrence, J., Poole, P., & Diener, S. (2003). Critical factors in career decision
making for women medical graduates. Medical Education, 37, 319-327.
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01476.x.

Leong, F., & Hardin, E. (2002). Career psychology of Asian Americans: Culture
validity and culture specify. In G. Hall, & S. Okazaki, Asian American
psychology: The science of lives in context (pp. 131-152). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.

Leong, F., & Serafica, F. (1995). Career development of Asian Americans: A

research area in search of good theory. In F. Leong, Career development

64
 and vocational behaviour of racial and ethnic minorities (pp. 67-102).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lindell, M., & Whitney, D. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in
cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1),
114-121. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.86.1.114.

Livingstone, D. (2004). The education-jobs gap: Underemployment or economic

democracy. Ontario, Canada: Garamond Press.

Lucas, M. (1997). Identity development, career development, and psychological

separation from parents: Similarities and differences between men and
women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44(2), 123-132. doi:
10.1037/0022-0167.44.2.123.

Luyckx, K., Soenens, B., Gooseens, L., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2007). Parenting,
identity formation, and college adjustment: A mediation model with
longitudinal data. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and
Research, 7(4), 309-330. doi: 10.1080/15283480701600785.

Ma, W., & Yeh, C. (2005). Factors influencing the career decision status of
Chinese American youths. The Career Development Quarterly, 53(4), 337-
347. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-0045.2005.tb00664.x.

Marini, M., Fan, P., Finley, E., & Beutel, A. (1996). Gender and job values.
Sociology of Education, 69(1), 49-65. http://www.jstor.org/
stable/2112723.

Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253. doi:
10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224.

McCrindle Research. (2012). Generations defined. Retrieved from

http://mccrindle.com.au/resources/Generations-Defined-Sociologically.
pdf

65
Meindl, S. (2009). Life span-life space considerations in career choice - Donald
Super. Retrieved from http://ezinearticles.com/?Life-Span-Life-Space-
Considerations-in-Career-Choice---Donald-Super&id=3109272

Myers, D. (1996). Social psychology (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Ng, E., Burke, R., & Fiksenbaum, L. (2008). Career choice in management:
Findings from US MBA students. Career Development International, 13(4),
346-361: doi: 10.1108/13620430810880835.

O'Brien, K., Friedman, S., Tipton, L., & Linn, S. (2000). Attachment, separation,
and women’s vocational development: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 47(3), 301-315. doi: 10.1037//O022-O167.
47.3.301.

Oishi, S., Diener, E., Lucas, R., & Suh, E. (1999). Cross-cultural variations in
predictors of life satisfaction: Perspectives from needs and values.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 980-990. doi:
10.1177/01461672992511006.

Otto, L. (2000). Youth perspectives on parental career influence. Journal of

Career Development, 27(2), 111-118. doi: 10.1177/089484530002700205.

Oxford Dictionaries. (2014). Career. Retrieved from http://www.oxford

dictionaries.com/definition/english/career

Palmer, S., & Cochran, L. (1988). Parents as agents of career development.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35(1), 71-76. doi: 10.1037/0022-
0167.35.1.71.

Pavlina, S. (2007). The challenge of choosing the right career. Retrieved from
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2007/11/the-challenge-of-choosing-
the-right-career/

Pelled, L., & Xin, K. (1997). Work values and their human resource management
implications: A theoretical comparison of China, Mexico, and the United
States. Journal of Applied Management Studies, 6(2), 185-198.

66
 http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/docview/213710756/f
ulltextPDF?accountid=17287.

Peterson, G., Stivers, M., & Peters, D. (1986). Family versus nonfamily significant
others for the career decisions of low-income youth. Family Relations,
35(3), 417-424. doi: 10.2307/584370.

Podsiadlowski, A., & Fox, S. (2011). Collectivist value orientations among four
ethnic groups: Collectivism in the New Zealand context. New Zealand
Journal of Psychology, 40(1), 5-18. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebsco
host.com.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/ehost/detail?vid=3&sid=e27d3fbb-6fa1-
43de-a9f9-789c532916c5%40sessionmgr4005&hid=4109&bdata=JnNpd
GU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=76482393.

Roach, K. (2010). The role of perceived parental influences on the career self-
efficacy of college students. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.
brockport.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=edc_theses

Robst, J. (2007). Education and job match: The relatedness of college major and
work. Economics of Education Review, 26, 397-407. doi: 10.1016/
j.econedurev.2006.08.003.

Roth, P., Switzer, F., & Switzer, D. (1999). Missing data in multiple item scales: A
Monte Carlo analysis of missing data techniques. Organizational Research
Methods, 2(3), 211-232. doi: 10.1177/109442819923001.

Schneider, S., & Barsoux, J. (2003). Managing across cultures. New York, NY:
Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Schwartz, S. (1999). A theory of cultural work values and some implications for
work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1), 23-47. doi:
10.1080/026999499377655.

Sebald, H. (1989). Adolescents’ peer orientation - Changes in the support system

during the past three decades. Adolescence, 24(96), 937-946. Retrieved

67
 from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/docview/195919
516?pq-origsite=summon.

Shaw, T., & Duys, D. (2005). Work values of mortuary science students. The
Career Development Quarterly, 53(4), 348-352. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/docview/219447082?
accountid=17287.

Shulruf, B., Hattie, J., & Dixon, R. (2007). Development of a new measurement
tool for individualism and collectivism. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 25(4), 385-401. doi: 10.1177/0734282906298992.

Sibson, R. (2011). Career choice perceptions of undergraduate event, sport, and

recreation management students: An Australian case study. Journal of
Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 10(2), 50-60. doi:
10.3794/johlste.102.371.

Smith, J. (2013). The pros and cons of job hopping. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/03/08/the-pros-and-
cons-of-job-hopping/

Smola, K., & Sutton, C. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational

work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
23(4), 363-382. doi: 10.1002/job.147.

Spector, P. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban

legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 221-232. doi:10.1177/
1094428105284955.

Statistics New Zealand. (2013). Introducing new measures of underemployment.

Retrieved from http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/income-and-
work/employment_and_unemployment/introducing-new-measures-
underemployment.aspx

Statistics New Zealand. (2014). Retrieved from 2013 Census QuickStats about
culture and identity: www.stats.govt.nz

68
Stone, D., Johnson, R., Stone-Romero, E., & Hartman, M. (2005). A comparative
study of Hispanic-American and Anglo-American cultural values and job
choice preferences. Management Research, 4(1), 7-21. doi:
10.2753/JMR1536-5433040101.

Sung, K. T. (1995). Measures of dimensions of filial piety in Korea. The

Gerontologist, 35(2), 240-247. doi: 10.1093/geront/35.2.240.

Super, D. (1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal

of Vocational Behaviour, 16, 282-298. doi: 10.1016/0001-8791(80)90056-
1.

Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA:
Pearson Education.

Tang, M., Fouad, N., & Smith, P. (1999). Asian Americans' career choice: A path
model to examine factors influencing their career choices. Journal of
Vocational Behaviour, 54, 142-157.

Triandis, H., Brislin, R., & Hui, C. (1988). Cross-cultural training across the
individualism-collectivism divide. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 12, 269-289. doi: 10.1016/0147-1767(88)90019-3.

University of Waikato. (2014). Personal programmes of study regulations.

Retrieved from http://calendar.waikato.ac.nz/regulations/personal
progs.html

Williams, B., Brown, T., & Onsman, A. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis: A five-
step guide for novices. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 8(3), 1-13.
Retrieved from https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&
source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CFMQFjAF&url=http%
3A%2F%2Fro.ecu.edu.au%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1373%
26context%3Djephc&ei=fsRBU6arHcWxlAX0tYHgBg&usg=AFQjCNF-nmr5Y.

69
Ying, Y., Coombs, M., & Lee, P. (1999). Family intergenerational relationship of
Asian American adolescents. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 5(4), 350-363. doi: 10.1037/1099-9809.5.4.350.

Yong, B. (1995). Teacher trainees' motives for entering into a teaching career in
Brunei Darussalam. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11(3), 275-280.
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/10.1016/0742-051X(94)00023-Y.

Young, B. (1995). Career plans and work perceptions of preservice teachers.

Teaching & Teacher Education, 11(3), 281-292. doi: 10.1016/0742-
051X(94)00024-Z.

Young, R. (1994). Helping adolescents with career development: The active role
of parents. The Career Development Quarterly, 42(3), 195-200.
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/docview/219439418?
accountid=17287#.

Young, V. (2013). Why we wind up on the wrong career path and what to do
about it. Retrieved from http://www.employmentspot.com/employment-
articles/wrong-career-path/

70
 Appendices

Appendix A – Invitation E-mail

Career Decision Making

Are you studying full-time? Are you in your final year?

If yes, I need your support! 

I am Natalia Pang, currently pursuing Master in Applied Psychology (Organisational Psychology) with the
Faculty of Arts and Social Science (FASS). As part of my qualification, I am conducting research, which is
being supervised by Dr Donald Cable ([email protected]) and Professor Michael O’Driscoll
([email protected]).

The objectives of my study are:

a) To examine the factors that affect students’ decision when choosing a career upon completing their studies;
b) To identify if other factors influence the above;
c) To investigate if perceived significant other influences increase students’ self-efficacy in making a career
decision; and
d) To examine if students have made a career decision and if the decision is related to their field of study.

Hence, your participation in this research will be very valuable in acquiring the needed information on the
topic and is much appreciated. The questionnaire will take approximately 10 minutes to complete.
Participation in this research is voluntary. Information that you will provide will be treated with complete
confidentiality.

To participate, please click the following link provided:

http://psychology.waikato.ac.nz/FactorsAffectingCareers.html

Thank you.
Natalia Pang
+64 21 0225 8311
[email protected]

71
Appendix B – Hardcopy of Questionnaire

Factors Affecting Students’ Career Decision

Dear Participant,

I am Natalia Pang, currently pursuing Master in Applied Psychology (Organisational Psychology) with the
Faculty of Arts and Social Science (FASS). As part of my qualification, I am conducting research, which is
being supervised by Dr Donald Cable ([email protected]) and Professor Michael O’Driscoll
([email protected]).

The objectives of my study are:

a) To examine the factors that affect students’ decision when choosing a career upon completing
their studies;
b) To identify if other factors influence the above;
c) To investigate if perceived significant other’s influences increase students’ self-efficacy in making a
career decision; and
d) To examine if students have made a career decision and if the decision is related to their field of
study.

Hence, your participation in this research will be very valuable in acquiring the needed information on the
topic and is much appreciated. The items in this questionnaire will revolve around both groups of factors,
students’ career decision self-efficacy, and students’ career decision and will take approximately 10 minutes
to complete.

The study is open to final year students who are pursuing their studies at the University of Waikato on a full-
time basis regardless of the field of study and qualification. The reasons for this is because final year
students are more likely to have given a thought about their careers and full-time students do not already
hold a career that may bias their responses to this research.

Participation in this research is voluntary. Information that you will provide will be treated with complete
confidentiality. You are permitted to drop out of the research at any participation stage. However, once you
have submitted and exited this questionnaire, it will not be possible to identify your questionnaire. Hence,
you will not be able to withdraw after submitting your responses. By completing this survey, you are giving
your consent to participate in this study.

This research has the approval of the Research and Ethics Committee at the School of Psychology, FASS,
University of Waikato. For further enquiries, please contact Deputy Chair Dr Nicola Starkey on +64 7 838
4032 (extension: 6472) or via e-mail at [email protected].

If you have any queries, I am available at +64 21 0225 8311 or [email protected].

Thank you.
Natalia Pang

72
 Factors Influencing Career Decision

The following items are factors that may influence your career decision. Please indicate how important they
are to you by ticking the appropriate responses according to the scale below.

1 2 3 4 5
Very Unimportant Unimportant Neither Important Important Very Important
nor Unimportant

How important is it to you to have…?

Factor 1 2 3 4 5
1. Good graduate/starting salary
2. Good future earnings potential
3. Interesting work
4. Good career opportunities
5. Range/variety of career opportunities
6. Professional prestige/high status of future career
7. Standard hours of work (i.e. 9 to 5)
8. Flexible hours of work
9. Opportunities to work closely with other people
10. Opportunities to influence other people
11. Opportunities for promotion/advancement
12. Opportunities for travel
13. Transferability of work skills
14. Pleasant working conditions
15. Opportunities for creativity and originality
16. Enjoyable work
17. Responsibility involved in job
18. Challenging job
19. Job security
20. Availability of jobs
21. Ability to make a contribution to society

73
 Cultural/Personal Values

The belief is that our cultural values influence the approach we take to career decision-making. The following items are designed
to measure how you view your own cultural values and will allow me to assess this proposition. Please indicate how often you
would behave or think as described in the following items by ticking the appropriate responses according to the scale below.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Never or Almost Rarely Occasionally Often Very Often Always
Never

How often do you behave or think as follows?

Item 1 2 3 4 5 6
22. I define myself as a competitive person.
23. I enjoy being unique and different from others.
24. Before I make a major decision, I seek advice from
people close to me.
25. Even when I strongly disagree with my group members,
I avoid an argument.
26. I consult with superiors on work-related matters.
27. I believe that competition is a law of nature.
28. I prefer competitive rather than non-competitive
recreational activities.
29. Before taking a major trip, I consult with my friends.
30. I sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group.
31. I consider my friends’ opinions before taking important
actions.
32. I like to be accurate when I communicate.
33. I consider myself as a unique person separate from
others.
34. It is important to consult close friends and get their
ideas before making a decision.
35. Without competition, I believe, it is not possible to
have a good society.
36. I ask the advice of my friends before making career-
related decisions.
37. I prefer using indirect language rather than upsetting
my friends by telling them directly what they may not like
to hear.

38. It is important for me to act as an independent person.

39. I discuss job or study-related problems with my
parents/partner.
40. I take responsibility for my own actions.
41. I do not reveal my thoughts when it might initiate a
dispute.
42. I try to achieve better grades than my peers.
43. My personal identity independent of others is very
important to me.
44. I enjoy working in situations involving competitions
with others.
45. I consult my family before making an important
decision.
46. Winning is very important to me.
47. I see myself as “my own person”.

74
 Career Behaviour Checklist

The following items will indicate if you perceive having influence when deciding on your career based on the person you
will identify in Q1.

Q1. Please indicate which person you would prefer to seek advice from by checking one of the following boxes.

Mother/Stepmother Father/Stepfather Other Caregiver

Q2. Please indicate the degree to which each statement applies to the person you have identified in Q1 as perceived by
you by indicating the appropriate responses according to the scale below.

1 2 3 4 5
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very Often

The person I identified in Question 1…

Factor 1 2 3 4 5
48. Expresses interest in various issues that are important to
me.
49. Has shown me where to find information about
universities or careers in the library or bookstore.
50. Has encouraged me to take interest assessments or
career tests offered by my school.
51. Encourages me to make my own decisions.
52. Tells me he/she has high expectations for my career.
53. Has encouraged me to consider many different
educational and career options.
54. Tells me about specific careers.
55. Helps me feel better when I tell him/her I am worried or
concerned about choosing a career.
56. Really tries to understand my thoughts, feelings, and
opinions about various topics.
57. Has given me written material about specific careers.
58. Has given me written material about specific universities.
59. Has talked to me about the steps involved in making
difficult decisions.
60. Has participated with me in a structured career
development workshop offered by my school, church, etc.
61. Has encouraged me to be involved in extra-curricular
activities (sports, music, church).
62. Encourages me to ask questions about different jobs.
63. Tells me he/she loves me.
64. Has helped me understand results from career tests or
interest assessment I have taken.
65. Encourages me to try new things.
66. Encourages me to talk to him/her about my career plans.
67. Asks what careers I am considering for my future.
68. Encourages me to choose whatever career I want.
69. Tells me he/she is proud of me.
70. Has supported me when I have told him/her that I am
interested in a specific career.

75
 Career Decision Self-Efficacy

The following items are designed to measure your perceived self-efficacy on making a career decision. Please indicate
how much confidence you have in accomplishing the tasks mentioned in the items according to the scale below.

1 2 3 4 5
No Confidence At All Very Little Moderate Much Confidence Complete
Confidence Confidence Confidence

How much confidence do you have to…?

Factor 1 2 3 4 5
71. Use the internet to find information about occupations that
interest me.
72. Select one major from a list of potential majors I am
considering
73. Make a plan of my goals for the next five years.
74. Determine the steps to take if I am having academic trouble
with an aspect of my chosen major.
75. Accurately assess my abilities.
76. Select one occupation from a list of potential occupations I
am considering.
77. Determine the steps I need to take to successfully complete
my chosen major.
78. Persistently work at my major or career goal even when I
get frustrated.
79. Determine what my ideal job would be.
80. Find out the employment trends for an occupation over the
next ten years.
81. Choose a career that will fit my preferred lifestyle.
82. Prepare a good resume.
83. Change majors if I did not like my first choice.
84. Decide what I value most in an occupation.
85. Find out about the average yearly earnings of people in an
occupation.
86. Make a career decision and then not worry whether it was
right or wrong.
87. Change occupations if I am not satisfied with the one I
enter.
88. Figure out what I am and am not ready to sacrifice to
achieve my career goals.

89. Talk with a person already employed in a field I am

interested in.
90. Choose a major or career that will fit my interests.
91. Identify employers, firms, and institutions relevant to my
career possibilities.
92. Define the type of lifestyle I would like to live.
93. Find information about graduate or professional schools.
94. Successfully manage the job interview process.
95. Identify some reasonable major or career alternatives if I am
unable to get my first choice.

76
 Career Decision and Relatedness to Field of Study

Please indicate your responses to the items below by filling in the blanks and ticking the appropriate boxes.

96. What is your field of study?

__________________________________________________________________________________

97. What qualification are you studying for?

__________________________________________________________________________________

98. Have you made a decision on the career you will be interested in pursuing once completing your studies?

Yes.

No. Please proceed to the demographic section.

99. If yes, is the career decision related to your field of study?

Yes No

77
 Demographic Information

Please note that the demographic information within this section is to enable me to describe the general
nature of the participants for the benefit of those who may review my research. No analysis of the
responses to this survey will be conducted based on these demographics. I remind you that you are free to
answer or not answer these questions, as you choose.

What is you gender? Male Female

How do you describe your ethnicity, i.e. what ethnic group do you affiliate/associate with?

__________________________________________________________________________________

What is your age?

__________________________________________________________________________________

Would you like a short report on the findings of this study? If yes, please send me an e-mail
([email protected]) with the subject title “Summary of Career Research Results” and a summary will be
e-mailed to you when the study is complete.

Thank you for participating in this research.

78
Appendix C – Information Page

79
Appendix D – Acknowledgement and Summary of Results
Page

80
Appendix E – Ethics Approval Letter

81
Appendix F – Scree Plot (Factors Influencing Career Decision)

Scree Plot (Initial)

Scree Plot (Final)

82
Appendix G – Scree Plot (Cultural/Personal Values)

Scree Plot (Initial)

Scree Plot (Final)

83
Appendix H – Scree Plot (Career Behaviour Checklist)

Scree Plot (Initial)

Scree Plot (Final)

84
Appendix I – Scree Plot (Career Decision Self-Efficacy Short
Form)

Scree Plot

85