4.2 Article

Difficulties in Career Decision Making and Self-Evaluations: A Meta-Analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT
Volume 28, Issue 4, Pages 608-635

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1069072720910089

Keywords

career indecision; indecisiveness; self-efficacy; self-esteem; meta-analysis

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [51NF40-160590]
  2. Samuel and Esther Melton Chair

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This meta-analysis examined the association between two types of difficulties in career decision making-indecision and indecisiveness-and four types of self-evaluations: generalized self-efficacy, process-related self-efficacy, content-related self-efficacy, and self-esteem. Analyses were conducted on data from 86 studies (N = 54,160): Process-related self-efficacy showed stronger negative associations with career indecision than did generalized self-efficacy, content-related self-efficacy, or self-esteem. In contrast, self-esteem showed stronger negative associations with indecisiveness than with career indecision. The second part of this meta-analysis focused on differential associations between two types of self-evaluations (process-related self-efficacy and self-esteem) and the three major clusters of difficulties in career decision making (lack of readiness, lack of information, and inconsistent information). Based on 19 studies (N = 7,953), the findings showed that process-related self-efficacy was strongly and negatively associated with lack of information and inconsistent information. In contrast, self-esteem was only weakly related to the three major clusters of difficulties in career decision making. In showing that each type of self-evaluation was more strongly associated with certain types and causes of difficulties in career decision making, the present article highlighted the importance of self-evaluations in the career decision-making process.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available