- Email: [email protected]
Occupational stereotypes and self-descriptions: Their relationship to vocational choice
Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 2,157-65 (1972)
Occupational Stereotypes and Self-Descriptions: Their Relationship to Vocational Choice MELVYN
A. HOLLANDER
Bronx State Hospital
and HARRY J. PARKER’ The University of Texas Southwestern Medical School at Dallas The purpose of this study was to test the assumption, based on Holland’s theory of vocational choice, that stereotypes of adolescents’ occupational preferences are related to selfdescriptions. Fifty-four high school sophomores were administered the Adjective Check List to obtain self-descriptions and stereotypes of their one most and one least preferred occupation. The Occupational Preference List, developed for this study, was administered to determine occupational preferences. Results suggested that occupational choices for adolescents were based in part on the degree of positive relationship between their self-descriptions and various occupational stereotypes they held. Other findings indicated that choices of most and least preferred occupations were made from different categories in Holland’s classification system.
An adolescent can experience or interact with no more than a small sample of the approximately 25,000 separate occupations (United States Department of Labor, 1965). Information about the world of work is derived primarily from indirect means, such as vicariously experiencing the discussions of others, printed material, TV, and other forms of mass media. Occupational perceptions and stereotypes are thereby developed and provide the raw material for adolescent decision making regarding which occupations to explore or consider. Hence, a study of the phenomenon of occupational stereotypes may be essential to understanding the adolescent’s vocational exploration and choice process. Holland (1959) proposed a theoretical model .of vocational choice from which the problem of this study was derived. His theory assumes that at the time of a vocational choice, a person is the product of the interaction of IRequests for reprints should be directed to Harry J. Parker, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School at Dallas, School of Allied Health Professions, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, Texas 75235.
57
58
HOLLANDER
AND
PARKER
hereditary, cultural, and personal forces. From these forces he develops a hierarchy of orientations for dealing with daily environmental demands. These orientations include such variables as interpersonal skills, values, interests, and aptitudes. Associated with these orientations are different physical and social environments. In essence, the theory states that vocational choice is a process by which a person “searches” for those environmental categories congruent with his hierarchy of coping orientations. Holland (1963a) proposed six types of orientations and/or environmental categories: realistic, intellectual, social, conventional, enterprising, and artistic. Each search for a suitable work environment implies that a person has acquired a series of occupational stereotypes. Some investigations have indicated that student stereotypes of occupations representing each of the six categories were generally consistent with the theoretical formulations for each category. Holland (1963) concluded that National Merit Scholars about to enter college held stereotypes of occupations consistent with the theoretical categories they represented. Hollander and Parker (1969) found similar results using a younger and more heterogenous student population. The literature provides evidence that stereotypes play an important role in determining which occupations one explores. Simmons (1967) reported that a significant correlation existed between the self-concepts of high school seniors who selected engineering as a major in college and their stereotype of engineers. Similar results were obtained by Englander (1960) using a college population of education majors. Pallone and Hosinski (1966) found a high degree of consistency between nurses’ self-descriptions and descriptions of nursing as a profession. While Holland never tested his theory of vocational choice with respect to stereotypes, some of his researches lend such support. The study of vocational images using open-ended sentences (Holland, 1963a) involved the same population in a later study by Holland (1963b) to obtain self-descriptions. Summarizing these two studies, Holland (1963~) stated: “A student’s image of a vocation is, to some degree, consistent with his self-rating and personality. For example, students usually “see” engineers as practical, hardworking, useful, etc., and students with engineering preferences characterize themselves as practical, hardworking, and enduring [p. 241.” In a recent statement of the theory, Holland (1966) proposed that selfdescription of one’s capabilities and interests, as well as stereotypes of occupations are reflected in vocational choice. Descriptions of self and stereotype descriptions of occupations are an outcome of personality development and often appear to be valid. The present study was designed to test Holland’s assumption that vocational choice involves, in part, congruence between self-description and occupational stereotypes. Specifically, an adolescent population was used to
OCCUPATIONAL
STEREOTYPES
AND
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
59
determine if stereotypes of occupational preferences are related .to selfdescriptions. The Adjective Check List (Cough & Heilbrun, 1965) was administered to obtain self-descriptions and the stereotypic descriptions of the one most preferred occupation and the one least preferred occupation. To ascertain preferences, the Occupational Preference List (Hollander, 1967) was constructed for this study and contains 36 occupations, each representative of Holland’s environmental categories. Three hypotheses were derived for the administration of the Adjective Check List and the Occupational Preference List. 1. Adolescent self-description and stereotypic description of one’s most preferred occupation are positively correlated. 2. Adolescent self-description and stereotypic description of one’s least preferred occupation are not correlated. 3. Adolescent most and least preferred occupational choices are selected from different environmental categories. The first hypothesis suggests that a significant agreement exists between how adolescents describe themselves and how they describe their stereotype of the person in the occupation they most prefer. This hypothesis derives from Holland’s theoretical premise that vocational choice is based, in part, on the degree of positive relationship between self-descriptions and occupational stereotypes. It follows that nonpreferred occupations would reflect less relationship or agreement between self-descriptions and occupational stereotypes than would preferred occupations. However, this is not to say that the relationship between self-description and least preferred occupational stereotype must be a negative one. Neither Holland’s theory nor similar ‘studies suggest that subjects view these occupations essentially as an antithesis to selfdescriptions. ‘Rather, subjects view their self-descriptions as having degrees of relationship to specified occupations. Accordingly, hypothesis two predicts that the stereotype of a least preferred occupation would bear no relation to self-description. METHOD Subjects. Fifty-four high school sophomores, randomly selected volunteers attending an urban high school in Oklahoma, were subjects for this study. The subjects were Caucasian and predominately “middle class,” a designation made by school officials, the State Department of Education, and accepted by the present investigators. Parents and school administrators approved the investigation. Test instruments. The Adjective Check List was the primary instrument used to test the hypotheses. Included in the Adjective Check List are 300
60
HOLLANDER
AND
PARKER
behavioral adjectives involving 24 need scales, from which a person is requested to choose those which are most self-descriptive. For this study, only the 15 need scales of the Adjective Check List were used. The remaining scales were omitted because their content did not appear germane for assessing adolescents’ stereotypes or self-descriptions. Instructions call for self-reports, but many studies using this instrument have varied the instructions widely. In fact, Gough and Heilbrun (1965) claim the Adjective Check List can be administered to persons to elicit characterizations of anyone with whom they are familiar. Hollander and Parker (1969) supported ‘this contenticin when they found the Adjective Check List to be a valid instrument for yielding adolescent occupational stereotypes. Each need scale provided a total raw score derived by obtaining the algebraic sum of indicative adjectives minus contraindicative adjectives. Additionally, Gough and Heilbrun (1965) offer sketches that are intuitive and inductive descriptions of each scale. To account for limitations in vocabulary, each subject was given an eight-page list of definitions for the 300 adjectives. Definitions were derived from the Thorndike-Barnhart (1965) Junior Dictionmy, and were selected to aid in providing meaningful responses. The Occupational Preference List (1967) constructed for this study, consisted of 36 job titles derived from Holland’s Vocational Preference Inventory (1965) and his theoretical paper (1959). These titles were arranged in alphabetical order (Accountant, Airplane Mechanic, Anthropologist, Author, Biologist, Bookkeeper, Buyer, Carpenter, Chemist, Composer, Court Stenographer, Doctor, Engineer, Farmer, Foreign Missionary, Hotel-Motel Manager, IBM Equipment Operator, Lawyer, Machine Operator, Mathematician, Musician, Nurse, Payroll Clerk, Physicist, Poet, Politician, Salesman, Secretary, School Counselor, School Teacher, Singer, Social Worker, Speech Therapist, Stage Director, Truck Driver, and TV Producer). Each of Holland’s six environmental categories were represented by six job titles (i.e., Realistic: Airplane Mechanic, Carpenter, Engineer, Farmer, Machine Operator, and Truck Driver). In addition, job titles were selected to provide a balance of traditionally male and female occupations and those viewed as having high and low occupational status. Each subject was instructed to place a plus “t” mark next to the one job he most preferred to enter, and a minus “-” mark next to the one job he least preferred to enter. Procedure. The Adjective Check List which yielded self-descriptions or occupational stereotypes, and the Occupational Preference List which determined vocational preference were administered to all subjects under standard classroom conditions, in two sessions. During the first session each subject was asked to describe himself on the Adjective Check List, and was given the Occupational Preference List to choose the one most preferred occupation and the one least preferred occupation. In- the second session, using the Adjective Check List, each subject was
OCCUPATIONAL
STEREOTYPES
AND
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
61
asked to describe his conception of his most preferred occupation and his least preferred occupation selected from the Occupational Check List. Statistical treatment of the data. A correlational analysis suggested by McNemar (1962) was used to study the degree of significance in the relationship between self-descriptions and the stereotypic descriptions of both the most and the least preferred occupations. Pearson product moment correlation coefficients between self and most preferred occupation and between self and least preferred occupation descriptions were computed separately for each of the 15 Adjective Check List need scales (Table 1). Every correlation coefficient was based on the self-description and occupational stereotype raw scores of an Adjective Check List scale across all subjects. Since it was thought desirable to determine the overall relationship of both sets of variables (self-most and self-least), the Pearson product moment correlation coefficients for each set of variables were averaged over the 15 scales of the Adjective Check List. Specifically, the overall correlation was computed by averaging the 2 scores corresponding to each correlation coefficient and then transforming the average Z back to a correlation coefficient. A large sample test concerning proportions (Walker & Lev, 1953) was selected to test the hypothesis that adolescents chose the most preferred occupation and the least preferred occupation from different environmental categories. Preferential choices of the subjects were classified into two groups: most and least preferred occupational choices selected from the same environmental category; and most and least preferred occupational choices selected from different environmental categories. With six environmental categories, it was predicted that the proportion of category agreement would be less than one-sixth. RESULTS The first hypothesis stated that an adolescent self-description of one’s most preferred occupation are positively correlated. Correlation coefficients between descriptions of oneself and one’s most preferred occupation were computed ,separately for each Adjective Check List scale. Another analysis of these data included averaging Z scores of the 15 correlation coefficients in order to obtain,a value describing the’overall degree of relationship. Table 1 reveals statistically significant results obtained .for 13 of the 15 correlation coefficients. Specifically, nine coefficients were significant at the .Ol level of confidence, while four coefficients attained the .OS level of confidence. Only the scales for succorance and abasement failed to show significant values. Other findings demonstrated that the overall relationship was significant (r = .39) at the .Ol level of confidence. Both the separate analysis of each
HOLLANDERANDPARKER
62
scale and the analysis of the combined scales yielded significant positive correlations. Therefore, the first hypothesis was confirmed. The fact that two scales did not reach statistical significance does not appear damaging to this hypothesis. Both values were positive relationships and just slightly smaller than the value necessary for significance. Furthermore, it was not expected that every scale would be equally sensitive to the nuances of perceived similarity. TABLE
1
Correlation Coefficients Between Self-description, Most Preferred Occupation, and Least Preferred Occupation Adjective Check List Need S&es Achievement Dominance Endurance Order Intraception Nurturance Affiliation Heterosexuality Exhibition Autonomy Aggression Change Succorance Abasement Deference
Self-description and most preferred occupationa
Self-description and least preferred 0ccupatiorG
.26* .21* .33* .26* .31** .53** .66** .64** .43** .38** .42** .36** .12 .17 .49**
.08 -.I3 .06 .ll .43** .22 .21 -.Ol -.Ol .05 .12 .21 -.14 -.28* -.03
aAverage of correlation coefficients for all scales in self-description and most preferred occupation = .39**. bAverage of correlation coefficients for all scales in self-description and least preferred occupation = .02. *p < .05. **p < .Ol.
The second hypothesis stated that an adolescent self-description and stereotypic description of one’s least preferred occupation are not correlated. Table 1 reveals that only two of the 15 correlation coefficients obtained were statistically signiticant. Specifically, the abasement scale yielded a significant negative correlation at the .05 level of confidence. In contrast, the intraception scale showed a significant positive correlation at the .Ol level of confidence. Although six of the 15 correlation coefficients were in a negative direction, seven were negligibly positive &d not suggestive of a meaningful relationship between variables.
OCCUPATIONAL
STEREOTYPES
AND
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
63
Other findings demonstrated that the overall relationship was not significant (r = .02). Both the separate analysis of each scale and the analysis of the combined scales failed to yield significant results. Therefore, the second hypothesis was confirmed. The significant negative correlation on the abasement scale might be explained as a defensive process operative on the part of the subjects. The indicative adjectives in this scale had a highly negative emotional loading, and it would seem unlikely that ones self-description or the most preferred occupation would be characterized in these terms. It would appear that the subjects found it easier to attribute such characteristics to an occupation with which one does not identify. The finding of a high positive correlation on the intraception scale was puzzling. In fact, this coefficient was larger than the one obtained between self-description and the most preferred occupation on this same scale. Since this phenomenon occurred only with the intraception scale, it may be viewed as a chance factor or a unique property of the scale insofar as discriminating perceived similarity. The third hypothesis stated that an adolescent selected the one most preferred occupation and the one least preferred occupation from different environmental categories. A large sample test involving proportions was used to test the above hypothesis. Since Holland proposed six categories, it was expected that by chance alone the probability of choosing the most preferred occupation and the least preferred occupation from the same environmental category would be one in six. Therefore,’ one-sixth of the 54 experimental subjects would distribute their choices into the same category. The remaining 45 subjects would make the two occupational selections from different categories. Only one of the 54 subjects selected the most preferred occupation and the least preferred occupation from the same category. The large sample test for proportions yielded a 2 score of -2.96, which was significant at the .Ol level of confidence. This meant that the probability of these results occurring, if the actual proportion of agreement as to category > = l/6, was less than one per cent. Therefore, hypothesis three was confirmed.
DISCUSSION The results suggested that stereotypes played an important role in occupational exploration and choice. All but two correlation coefficients for each Adjective Check List scale were significant for the relationship between self-description and one’s most preferred occupation. Additionally, a significant overall relationship was found when the 15 scales were averaged. Neither the separate analysis for each scale nor the analysis of averaging the scales
64
HOLLANDER
AND
PARKER
yielded support of significance with regard to the relationship between selfdescription and description of one’s least preferred occupation. The present study supports certain aspects of Holland’s theory of vocational choice, particularly that occupational choices for adolescents were based in part on the degree of positive relationship between their self-description and various occupational stereotypes that they held. This finding is significant in understanding Holland’s (1959) theoretical statement that a person, in making a vocational choice, “searches” for situations which satisfy his hierarchy of adjustive orientations. Other findings suggested that adolescents tended to choose their most preferred occupation and. their least preferred occupation from different categories. This study further supported Holland’s paper (1959) in which he stated that persons develop a hierarchy of adjustive orientations to life, each of which corresponds to a specific occupational environment. It was concluded that the two occupational selections were from different categories because the selections corresponded to different levels in an individual’s hierarchy. That is, the most preferred occupation corresponded to the orientation highest in the individual’s hierarchy; while the least preferred occupation corresponded to the orientation lowest in the hierarchy. The applicability of the theory to a population other than derived from Holland’s theory might, therefore, be generalized to a younger and more academically heterogenous population. Applicability of the theory, with respect to measuring stereotypes and self-descriptions on need scales of the Adjective Check List was almost totally supported, save the intraception scale. Furthermore, the Occupational Preference List was found to be an effective screening device for determining which occupational categories and adolescent might profitably explore. Implications for further study surround analysis of sex differences in the relationship of self-description and occupational stereotypes to vocational choice, since Holland’s theory of vocational choice had not generated any theoretical propositions regarding sex differences. Longitudinal studies of the vocational choice process and maintenance of stereotypes, covering a period from early childhood through late adolescence, also appear needed as well as studies involving sex differences and occupational stereotypes. This study supports those aspects of counseling devoted to client exploration of self-concept and its relationship to the vocational choice process. Attention can be directed toward self-description and Holland’s six orientations. Thus, by reviewing selfdescriptions, the client can be aided to search for occupations that are congruent with his stereotypic information about them.
OCCUPATIONAL
STEREOTYPES
AND SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
65
REFERENCES Englander, M. E. A psychological analysis of vocational choice: teaching. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1960, 7, 257-264. Gough, H. G. & Heilbrun, A. B. Manual-Adjective Check List. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1965. Holland, J. L. A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1959, 6, 35-45. Holland, J. L. Explorations of a theory of vocational choice: vocational images and choice. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 1963, 11, 232-239. (a) Holland, J. L. Explorations of a theory of vocational choice: self-descriptions and vocational preferences. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 1963, 12, 17-21 (b) Holland, J. L. Explorations of a theory of vocational choice: coping behaviors, competencies, and vocational preferences. Vocational Gutdance Quarterly, 1963, 12, 21-25. (c) Holland, J. L. Manual for the vocational preference inventory. Iowa City, Iowa: Educational Research Assoc., 1965. Holland, J. L. The psychology of vocational choice. Waltham, Mass.: Blaisdell, 1966. Hollander, M. A. Occupational preference list. Oklahoma City, Okla.: Mimeographed, 1967. Hollander, M. A. & Parker, H. J. Occupational stereotypes and needs: their relationship to vocational choice. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 1969, 18,91-98. McNemar, Q. Psychological statistics, 3rd ed. New York: Wiley, 1962. Pallone, N. J. & Hosinski, M. Reality testing a vocational choice: congruence between self, ideal, and occupational percepts among student nurses. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1966,45,666-670. Simmons, D. D. Self-concept, occupational stereotype, and engineering career plans. Psychological Reports, 1967, 20, 514. Thomdike, E. L. & Barnhart, C. Advanced junior dictionary. Chicago: Scott-Foresman, 1965. United States Department of Labor, Manpower Administration. Dictionary of occupational titles, 3rd ed. Washington, D. C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1965. Walker, H. M. & Lev, J. Statistical inference. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1953. Received February 16, 1971.
Behavior, 2,157-65 (1972)
Occupational Stereotypes and Self-Descriptions: Their Relationship to Vocational Choice MELVYN
A. HOLLANDER
Bronx State Hospital
and HARRY J. PARKER’ The University of Texas Southwestern Medical School at Dallas The purpose of this study was to test the assumption, based on Holland’s theory of vocational choice, that stereotypes of adolescents’ occupational preferences are related to selfdescriptions. Fifty-four high school sophomores were administered the Adjective Check List to obtain self-descriptions and stereotypes of their one most and one least preferred occupation. The Occupational Preference List, developed for this study, was administered to determine occupational preferences. Results suggested that occupational choices for adolescents were based in part on the degree of positive relationship between their self-descriptions and various occupational stereotypes they held. Other findings indicated that choices of most and least preferred occupations were made from different categories in Holland’s classification system.
An adolescent can experience or interact with no more than a small sample of the approximately 25,000 separate occupations (United States Department of Labor, 1965). Information about the world of work is derived primarily from indirect means, such as vicariously experiencing the discussions of others, printed material, TV, and other forms of mass media. Occupational perceptions and stereotypes are thereby developed and provide the raw material for adolescent decision making regarding which occupations to explore or consider. Hence, a study of the phenomenon of occupational stereotypes may be essential to understanding the adolescent’s vocational exploration and choice process. Holland (1959) proposed a theoretical model .of vocational choice from which the problem of this study was derived. His theory assumes that at the time of a vocational choice, a person is the product of the interaction of IRequests for reprints should be directed to Harry J. Parker, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School at Dallas, School of Allied Health Professions, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, Texas 75235.
57
58
HOLLANDER
AND
PARKER
hereditary, cultural, and personal forces. From these forces he develops a hierarchy of orientations for dealing with daily environmental demands. These orientations include such variables as interpersonal skills, values, interests, and aptitudes. Associated with these orientations are different physical and social environments. In essence, the theory states that vocational choice is a process by which a person “searches” for those environmental categories congruent with his hierarchy of coping orientations. Holland (1963a) proposed six types of orientations and/or environmental categories: realistic, intellectual, social, conventional, enterprising, and artistic. Each search for a suitable work environment implies that a person has acquired a series of occupational stereotypes. Some investigations have indicated that student stereotypes of occupations representing each of the six categories were generally consistent with the theoretical formulations for each category. Holland (1963) concluded that National Merit Scholars about to enter college held stereotypes of occupations consistent with the theoretical categories they represented. Hollander and Parker (1969) found similar results using a younger and more heterogenous student population. The literature provides evidence that stereotypes play an important role in determining which occupations one explores. Simmons (1967) reported that a significant correlation existed between the self-concepts of high school seniors who selected engineering as a major in college and their stereotype of engineers. Similar results were obtained by Englander (1960) using a college population of education majors. Pallone and Hosinski (1966) found a high degree of consistency between nurses’ self-descriptions and descriptions of nursing as a profession. While Holland never tested his theory of vocational choice with respect to stereotypes, some of his researches lend such support. The study of vocational images using open-ended sentences (Holland, 1963a) involved the same population in a later study by Holland (1963b) to obtain self-descriptions. Summarizing these two studies, Holland (1963~) stated: “A student’s image of a vocation is, to some degree, consistent with his self-rating and personality. For example, students usually “see” engineers as practical, hardworking, useful, etc., and students with engineering preferences characterize themselves as practical, hardworking, and enduring [p. 241.” In a recent statement of the theory, Holland (1966) proposed that selfdescription of one’s capabilities and interests, as well as stereotypes of occupations are reflected in vocational choice. Descriptions of self and stereotype descriptions of occupations are an outcome of personality development and often appear to be valid. The present study was designed to test Holland’s assumption that vocational choice involves, in part, congruence between self-description and occupational stereotypes. Specifically, an adolescent population was used to
OCCUPATIONAL
STEREOTYPES
AND
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
59
determine if stereotypes of occupational preferences are related .to selfdescriptions. The Adjective Check List (Cough & Heilbrun, 1965) was administered to obtain self-descriptions and the stereotypic descriptions of the one most preferred occupation and the one least preferred occupation. To ascertain preferences, the Occupational Preference List (Hollander, 1967) was constructed for this study and contains 36 occupations, each representative of Holland’s environmental categories. Three hypotheses were derived for the administration of the Adjective Check List and the Occupational Preference List. 1. Adolescent self-description and stereotypic description of one’s most preferred occupation are positively correlated. 2. Adolescent self-description and stereotypic description of one’s least preferred occupation are not correlated. 3. Adolescent most and least preferred occupational choices are selected from different environmental categories. The first hypothesis suggests that a significant agreement exists between how adolescents describe themselves and how they describe their stereotype of the person in the occupation they most prefer. This hypothesis derives from Holland’s theoretical premise that vocational choice is based, in part, on the degree of positive relationship between self-descriptions and occupational stereotypes. It follows that nonpreferred occupations would reflect less relationship or agreement between self-descriptions and occupational stereotypes than would preferred occupations. However, this is not to say that the relationship between self-description and least preferred occupational stereotype must be a negative one. Neither Holland’s theory nor similar ‘studies suggest that subjects view these occupations essentially as an antithesis to selfdescriptions. ‘Rather, subjects view their self-descriptions as having degrees of relationship to specified occupations. Accordingly, hypothesis two predicts that the stereotype of a least preferred occupation would bear no relation to self-description. METHOD Subjects. Fifty-four high school sophomores, randomly selected volunteers attending an urban high school in Oklahoma, were subjects for this study. The subjects were Caucasian and predominately “middle class,” a designation made by school officials, the State Department of Education, and accepted by the present investigators. Parents and school administrators approved the investigation. Test instruments. The Adjective Check List was the primary instrument used to test the hypotheses. Included in the Adjective Check List are 300
60
HOLLANDER
AND
PARKER
behavioral adjectives involving 24 need scales, from which a person is requested to choose those which are most self-descriptive. For this study, only the 15 need scales of the Adjective Check List were used. The remaining scales were omitted because their content did not appear germane for assessing adolescents’ stereotypes or self-descriptions. Instructions call for self-reports, but many studies using this instrument have varied the instructions widely. In fact, Gough and Heilbrun (1965) claim the Adjective Check List can be administered to persons to elicit characterizations of anyone with whom they are familiar. Hollander and Parker (1969) supported ‘this contenticin when they found the Adjective Check List to be a valid instrument for yielding adolescent occupational stereotypes. Each need scale provided a total raw score derived by obtaining the algebraic sum of indicative adjectives minus contraindicative adjectives. Additionally, Gough and Heilbrun (1965) offer sketches that are intuitive and inductive descriptions of each scale. To account for limitations in vocabulary, each subject was given an eight-page list of definitions for the 300 adjectives. Definitions were derived from the Thorndike-Barnhart (1965) Junior Dictionmy, and were selected to aid in providing meaningful responses. The Occupational Preference List (1967) constructed for this study, consisted of 36 job titles derived from Holland’s Vocational Preference Inventory (1965) and his theoretical paper (1959). These titles were arranged in alphabetical order (Accountant, Airplane Mechanic, Anthropologist, Author, Biologist, Bookkeeper, Buyer, Carpenter, Chemist, Composer, Court Stenographer, Doctor, Engineer, Farmer, Foreign Missionary, Hotel-Motel Manager, IBM Equipment Operator, Lawyer, Machine Operator, Mathematician, Musician, Nurse, Payroll Clerk, Physicist, Poet, Politician, Salesman, Secretary, School Counselor, School Teacher, Singer, Social Worker, Speech Therapist, Stage Director, Truck Driver, and TV Producer). Each of Holland’s six environmental categories were represented by six job titles (i.e., Realistic: Airplane Mechanic, Carpenter, Engineer, Farmer, Machine Operator, and Truck Driver). In addition, job titles were selected to provide a balance of traditionally male and female occupations and those viewed as having high and low occupational status. Each subject was instructed to place a plus “t” mark next to the one job he most preferred to enter, and a minus “-” mark next to the one job he least preferred to enter. Procedure. The Adjective Check List which yielded self-descriptions or occupational stereotypes, and the Occupational Preference List which determined vocational preference were administered to all subjects under standard classroom conditions, in two sessions. During the first session each subject was asked to describe himself on the Adjective Check List, and was given the Occupational Preference List to choose the one most preferred occupation and the one least preferred occupation. In- the second session, using the Adjective Check List, each subject was
OCCUPATIONAL
STEREOTYPES
AND
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
61
asked to describe his conception of his most preferred occupation and his least preferred occupation selected from the Occupational Check List. Statistical treatment of the data. A correlational analysis suggested by McNemar (1962) was used to study the degree of significance in the relationship between self-descriptions and the stereotypic descriptions of both the most and the least preferred occupations. Pearson product moment correlation coefficients between self and most preferred occupation and between self and least preferred occupation descriptions were computed separately for each of the 15 Adjective Check List need scales (Table 1). Every correlation coefficient was based on the self-description and occupational stereotype raw scores of an Adjective Check List scale across all subjects. Since it was thought desirable to determine the overall relationship of both sets of variables (self-most and self-least), the Pearson product moment correlation coefficients for each set of variables were averaged over the 15 scales of the Adjective Check List. Specifically, the overall correlation was computed by averaging the 2 scores corresponding to each correlation coefficient and then transforming the average Z back to a correlation coefficient. A large sample test concerning proportions (Walker & Lev, 1953) was selected to test the hypothesis that adolescents chose the most preferred occupation and the least preferred occupation from different environmental categories. Preferential choices of the subjects were classified into two groups: most and least preferred occupational choices selected from the same environmental category; and most and least preferred occupational choices selected from different environmental categories. With six environmental categories, it was predicted that the proportion of category agreement would be less than one-sixth. RESULTS The first hypothesis stated that an adolescent self-description of one’s most preferred occupation are positively correlated. Correlation coefficients between descriptions of oneself and one’s most preferred occupation were computed ,separately for each Adjective Check List scale. Another analysis of these data included averaging Z scores of the 15 correlation coefficients in order to obtain,a value describing the’overall degree of relationship. Table 1 reveals statistically significant results obtained .for 13 of the 15 correlation coefficients. Specifically, nine coefficients were significant at the .Ol level of confidence, while four coefficients attained the .OS level of confidence. Only the scales for succorance and abasement failed to show significant values. Other findings demonstrated that the overall relationship was significant (r = .39) at the .Ol level of confidence. Both the separate analysis of each
HOLLANDERANDPARKER
62
scale and the analysis of the combined scales yielded significant positive correlations. Therefore, the first hypothesis was confirmed. The fact that two scales did not reach statistical significance does not appear damaging to this hypothesis. Both values were positive relationships and just slightly smaller than the value necessary for significance. Furthermore, it was not expected that every scale would be equally sensitive to the nuances of perceived similarity. TABLE
1
Correlation Coefficients Between Self-description, Most Preferred Occupation, and Least Preferred Occupation Adjective Check List Need S&es Achievement Dominance Endurance Order Intraception Nurturance Affiliation Heterosexuality Exhibition Autonomy Aggression Change Succorance Abasement Deference
Self-description and most preferred occupationa
Self-description and least preferred 0ccupatiorG
.26* .21* .33* .26* .31** .53** .66** .64** .43** .38** .42** .36** .12 .17 .49**
.08 -.I3 .06 .ll .43** .22 .21 -.Ol -.Ol .05 .12 .21 -.14 -.28* -.03
aAverage of correlation coefficients for all scales in self-description and most preferred occupation = .39**. bAverage of correlation coefficients for all scales in self-description and least preferred occupation = .02. *p < .05. **p < .Ol.
The second hypothesis stated that an adolescent self-description and stereotypic description of one’s least preferred occupation are not correlated. Table 1 reveals that only two of the 15 correlation coefficients obtained were statistically signiticant. Specifically, the abasement scale yielded a significant negative correlation at the .05 level of confidence. In contrast, the intraception scale showed a significant positive correlation at the .Ol level of confidence. Although six of the 15 correlation coefficients were in a negative direction, seven were negligibly positive &d not suggestive of a meaningful relationship between variables.
OCCUPATIONAL
STEREOTYPES
AND
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
63
Other findings demonstrated that the overall relationship was not significant (r = .02). Both the separate analysis of each scale and the analysis of the combined scales failed to yield significant results. Therefore, the second hypothesis was confirmed. The significant negative correlation on the abasement scale might be explained as a defensive process operative on the part of the subjects. The indicative adjectives in this scale had a highly negative emotional loading, and it would seem unlikely that ones self-description or the most preferred occupation would be characterized in these terms. It would appear that the subjects found it easier to attribute such characteristics to an occupation with which one does not identify. The finding of a high positive correlation on the intraception scale was puzzling. In fact, this coefficient was larger than the one obtained between self-description and the most preferred occupation on this same scale. Since this phenomenon occurred only with the intraception scale, it may be viewed as a chance factor or a unique property of the scale insofar as discriminating perceived similarity. The third hypothesis stated that an adolescent selected the one most preferred occupation and the one least preferred occupation from different environmental categories. A large sample test involving proportions was used to test the above hypothesis. Since Holland proposed six categories, it was expected that by chance alone the probability of choosing the most preferred occupation and the least preferred occupation from the same environmental category would be one in six. Therefore,’ one-sixth of the 54 experimental subjects would distribute their choices into the same category. The remaining 45 subjects would make the two occupational selections from different categories. Only one of the 54 subjects selected the most preferred occupation and the least preferred occupation from the same category. The large sample test for proportions yielded a 2 score of -2.96, which was significant at the .Ol level of confidence. This meant that the probability of these results occurring, if the actual proportion of agreement as to category > = l/6, was less than one per cent. Therefore, hypothesis three was confirmed.
DISCUSSION The results suggested that stereotypes played an important role in occupational exploration and choice. All but two correlation coefficients for each Adjective Check List scale were significant for the relationship between self-description and one’s most preferred occupation. Additionally, a significant overall relationship was found when the 15 scales were averaged. Neither the separate analysis for each scale nor the analysis of averaging the scales
64
HOLLANDER
AND
PARKER
yielded support of significance with regard to the relationship between selfdescription and description of one’s least preferred occupation. The present study supports certain aspects of Holland’s theory of vocational choice, particularly that occupational choices for adolescents were based in part on the degree of positive relationship between their self-description and various occupational stereotypes that they held. This finding is significant in understanding Holland’s (1959) theoretical statement that a person, in making a vocational choice, “searches” for situations which satisfy his hierarchy of adjustive orientations. Other findings suggested that adolescents tended to choose their most preferred occupation and. their least preferred occupation from different categories. This study further supported Holland’s paper (1959) in which he stated that persons develop a hierarchy of adjustive orientations to life, each of which corresponds to a specific occupational environment. It was concluded that the two occupational selections were from different categories because the selections corresponded to different levels in an individual’s hierarchy. That is, the most preferred occupation corresponded to the orientation highest in the individual’s hierarchy; while the least preferred occupation corresponded to the orientation lowest in the hierarchy. The applicability of the theory to a population other than derived from Holland’s theory might, therefore, be generalized to a younger and more academically heterogenous population. Applicability of the theory, with respect to measuring stereotypes and self-descriptions on need scales of the Adjective Check List was almost totally supported, save the intraception scale. Furthermore, the Occupational Preference List was found to be an effective screening device for determining which occupational categories and adolescent might profitably explore. Implications for further study surround analysis of sex differences in the relationship of self-description and occupational stereotypes to vocational choice, since Holland’s theory of vocational choice had not generated any theoretical propositions regarding sex differences. Longitudinal studies of the vocational choice process and maintenance of stereotypes, covering a period from early childhood through late adolescence, also appear needed as well as studies involving sex differences and occupational stereotypes. This study supports those aspects of counseling devoted to client exploration of self-concept and its relationship to the vocational choice process. Attention can be directed toward self-description and Holland’s six orientations. Thus, by reviewing selfdescriptions, the client can be aided to search for occupations that are congruent with his stereotypic information about them.
OCCUPATIONAL
STEREOTYPES
AND SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
65
REFERENCES Englander, M. E. A psychological analysis of vocational choice: teaching. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1960, 7, 257-264. Gough, H. G. & Heilbrun, A. B. Manual-Adjective Check List. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1965. Holland, J. L. A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1959, 6, 35-45. Holland, J. L. Explorations of a theory of vocational choice: vocational images and choice. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 1963, 11, 232-239. (a) Holland, J. L. Explorations of a theory of vocational choice: self-descriptions and vocational preferences. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 1963, 12, 17-21 (b) Holland, J. L. Explorations of a theory of vocational choice: coping behaviors, competencies, and vocational preferences. Vocational Gutdance Quarterly, 1963, 12, 21-25. (c) Holland, J. L. Manual for the vocational preference inventory. Iowa City, Iowa: Educational Research Assoc., 1965. Holland, J. L. The psychology of vocational choice. Waltham, Mass.: Blaisdell, 1966. Hollander, M. A. Occupational preference list. Oklahoma City, Okla.: Mimeographed, 1967. Hollander, M. A. & Parker, H. J. Occupational stereotypes and needs: their relationship to vocational choice. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 1969, 18,91-98. McNemar, Q. Psychological statistics, 3rd ed. New York: Wiley, 1962. Pallone, N. J. & Hosinski, M. Reality testing a vocational choice: congruence between self, ideal, and occupational percepts among student nurses. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1966,45,666-670. Simmons, D. D. Self-concept, occupational stereotype, and engineering career plans. Psychological Reports, 1967, 20, 514. Thomdike, E. L. & Barnhart, C. Advanced junior dictionary. Chicago: Scott-Foresman, 1965. United States Department of Labor, Manpower Administration. Dictionary of occupational titles, 3rd ed. Washington, D. C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1965. Walker, H. M. & Lev, J. Statistical inference. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1953. Received February 16, 1971.