- Email: [email protected]
The latent structure of occupations
Journal of Vocational Behavior 14, 145-168 (1979)
The Latent Structure of Occupations T. BLOCH Bar-llan Uni\versity, Ramat-Can AND
Y. RIM* Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa Triads of occupations were given to 1300 high-school pupils of both sexes in order to find the affinities of the occupations and the values they used to arrive at the affinities. The values used to perceive occupations come from the subject; nevertheless they could be categorized into a scheme of 20 different values, with the residue category containing less than I% of the answers. In accordance with previous research in this field, an almost universal structure of occupations was found. The following variables had no influence on the choice of occupational affinities: age, trend of study, SES. father’s occupation, mother’s occupation. vocational maturity, and preferred occupation. Only the pupils of one school were significantly different in affiliating the occupations in the triads. Furthermore, girls perceive the world of occupations more uniformly than boys. Underlying this universal structure of occupations there exists a latent structure. specific to each individual. which explains why the world of occupations is seen in the way it is. This latent structure of occupations is influenced by the individual’s specific background.
One of the ways of simplifying the process of occupational choice is to organize occupations-into groups according to their similarities. Studies on the structure of occupations during the last two decades show that the structure is circular when viewed from the standpoint of interests (Roe, 1954; Roe, 1956; Crites, 1962; Jones, 1965; Doyle, 1965; Osipow, 1966; LoCascio, 1967; Roe, Hubbard, Hutchinson, & Bateman, 1966; Hutchinson & Roe, 1968; Meir, 1968; Holland & Whitney, 1968; Roe & Hutchinson, 1969; Roe & Klos, 1969; Meir 1970, 1973; Meir & Barak, 1974; Meir * Abraham Tulin chair of Social Sciences. Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Tova Bloch. School of Library and Information Science, University of California. Berkeley, CA 94720. 145 0001~8791/79/020145-24$02.0010 All
Copyright @ 1979 by Academic Press. Inc. rights of reproduction in any form reserved
146
BLOCH
AND
RIM
& Hadadi, 1974; Holland, Whitney, Cole, & Richards, 1969; Cole, Whitney, & Holland, 1971; Edwards & Whitney, 1972; Cole & Hanson, 1971; Lunneborg & Lunneborg, 1977). It is hierarchical when seen through the dimension of prestige (Counts, 1925; Deeg & Paterson, 1947; North & Hatt, 1947; Sarapata & Wesolowski, 1961; Simpson & Simpson, 1961; Nosow & Form, 1962; Lissak, 1963; Gunn, 1964; Hodges, Siegel, & Rossi, 1964; Hake], Hollman, & Dunnette, 1968; Ramsey & Smith, 1959; Simmons & Rosenberg, 1971; Haller, Holsinger & Saraiva, 1972; Braun & Bayer, 1973; Hall, 1975; Fossum & Moore, 1975; Plata, 1975, and many more). As far back as 1950, Raylesberg said: “One of the important determiners of vocational choice is the individual’s perceptions of the various aspects of an occupation within the frame of reference of his set of values” (Raylesberg 1950). Since then, the body of knowledge about how people see occupations has steadily grown. For example, Dipboye and Anderson (1961) found that the description of job activities gave rise to stereotypic perceptions of occupations; and Osipow (1962) reported that the mere names of the occupations influence occupational perceptions. Beardslee and O’Dowd found that college students had only vague ideas about the activities connected with various occupations. They also saw the trainee as similar to the mature worker. These perceptions did not change during the four years at college and were not influenced by the faculty (Beardslee & O’Dowd 1962; O’Dowd & Beardslee, 1960, 1967). It is not clear to what extent occupational stereotypes influence the picture because very few studies were designed with a specific view to prevent this effect. Nor did they allow the subject to choose the dimensions used to structure the occupations by himself. The earliest work in this direction is by Grunes (1957) who told high school pupils to sort 51 occupations into groups in as many ways as possible. In order to explain the structure of those occupations which appear together in at least half the cases, he gave pupils six short descriptions of activities and had them choose for .each description five occupations. The resulting analysis showed seven overlapping job clusters. The occupational structure of that research is derived directly from the subject, but the dimensions used to reach that structure are not, because they are influenced by the job descriptions. Gonyea (1961) gave students a list of 30 occupations and had them choose for each occupation the most similar of the remaining 29. Using factor analysis he found five independent factors. Gonyea and Lunneborg (1963) arranged 22 occupations in 77 triads and asked the subjects to cross out the most different occupation of the three. Also in these two studies, the occupational structure is indeed that of the subjects but the dimensions used in the process are only inferred. Triads of people (as in the original method of Kelly, 1955)rather than of occupations were used by Stavishevsky (1963) to get at the self-concepts.
LATENTSTRUCTUREOFOCCUPATIONS
147
He theorizes that if an individual sees himself as possessing traits x, y, and z (psychtalk), then he considers himself suitable for occupation A (occtalk). His model translates occtalk into psychtalk and is an indirect way of finding the occupational dimensions of the subject. Reeb (1974) considers occupational structure as an intervening variable between the stimuli from the world of occupations and occupational choice. He presented 8th grade pupils with 12 occupations in all possible pairs (66) and asked them to rank them on a scale of l-5 according to the following criterion: If a person is very suitable for the first occupation, how suitable will he be for the second one? Unfortunately, the word “suitable” limits the range of dimensions which can be elicited, because it suggests ability, training, or possibly personality. It is, however. interesting to note that the resulting structure is not influenced by socioeconomic status, the school attended, the preferred occupation, or even intelligence. Coxon (1971), in an attempt to reach the dimensions used by the subjects directly, had social science students mark in 56 triads (based on eight occupations from the social sciences) the two most similar occupations and give a name to this similarity. Unfortunately, Coxon found that 50% of the traits given were unique to the individual. He abandoned this line, took the 21 most common traits, and continued his work with the use of the semantic differential. Considering the large number of studies made on work values (Centers, 1949; Schaffer, 1953; Rosenberg, 1957; Super, 1962; Bendig & Stillman, 1958; O’Connor & Kinnane, 1961; Weiss, Davis, England, & Lofquist, 1964) to quote just a few, it seems reasonable to assume that it should be possible to classify Coxon’s “unique” concepts into work values. One of the purposes of the present study is to examine the concepts used by the subject to structure occupations and to see whether they can be sorted into work values. From the past work done on occupational structure in general and Reeb’s work in particular one can derive a universal structure of occupations which is not influenced by the individual characteristics of the subject or his background. Still people do differ in their interests and personalities, which leads one to expect that the reasons why people arrive at this universal structure are different and may be influenced by various background variables. This reasoning is considerably strengthened by Coxon’s work who found different explanations for the same occupational structure in subjects studying in the same faculty. These considerations lead us to the following hypotheses. HYPOTHESES (1) There exists a universal perception of occupations which is not influenced by the background of the individual (age, school, socio-
148
BLOCH ANDRIM
economic status, subject-trend studied, intelligence level, or parents’ occupation). (2) The background of the individual does influence the choice of values used in classifying occupations. In addition we ask the following two questions: (3) What are the dimensions used by the individual in classifying occupations? (4) Is it possible to classify these dimensions into categories of values known to be connected with occupational choice? METHOD
Subjects The first practical step towards the individual’s future occupation is taken when he chooses the subject-trend in school at the end of the 9th grade. This seemed to be a good starting point to test occupational perceptions. The sample (N = 1372) was taken from 9th-12th grades of four different types of Israeli high schools, chosen to obtain a wide range of ability levels and subject trends. Arranged by ability levels they are: (I) academic: practically all pupils matriculate and most would be expected to pursue academic studies; (2) technical: graduates become technicians but are accepted also at the technical universities; (3) girls vocational: most learn a trade and obtain a 12th-grade school leaving certificate; and (4) comprehensive: streamlined according to ability, the lower levels leaving the school after the 1lth grade; only a third matriculate and few actually enter a university. The sample covered 18 subject trends as well as pupils who had not yet chosen their trend. Instruments (I) Occupational Concept Test (OCT) The purpose of this instrument is to find which concepts the subject uses when clarifying different occupations. The method is based on Kelly’s repertory grid technique (Kelly, 1955; Bannister & Mail-, 1968; Bannister & Fransella, 1971). Occupations are presented in groups of three; the subject’s task being to decide which two have something in common that is different from the third and then to give a name to this common factor and its opposite. To classify these factors, 16 were identified in the literature on work values, namely: Physical-Mental Work (works hard, uses brains not hands); Description of Activity (uses screwdriver, gives injections): Training Needed (studies seven years, requires a degree); Stereotype (science-humanities, industry-agriculture); People-Things (meets people, works alone): Place of Work (office, outdoors): Independence-Dependence (makes his own decisions. takes orders): Status (has great honor, is more important): Conditions of Work (working
LATENT
STRUCTURE
149
OF OCCUPATIONS
hours, uniform, sitting-standing); Leadership (in charge of others, gives orders); Money (earns a lot, must be rich): Abilities Needed (physical fitness, patience); Altruism (helps people, useful to society); InterestingBoring; Creativity (designs new things); Social Security (never out of a job, has pension). Another three Theoretical-Practical (useful): Worker’s Sex, and Occupation of Father or Other Relative were found empirically (from the pretest). To these was added a residue category Original Answer (responses not fitting any of the above categories) giving a total of 20 different categories (see also Table 1). Twenty-four of the most common occupations in Israel (Census, 1970) were chosen and arranged in 16 triads, each occupation appearing twice, randomly, with two different occupations. In the first pretest some of the occupations caused confusion, with either girls or boys not understanding the occupational title or being unable to decide on common factors. Therefore, a separate form was prepared for each sex. Relirrbility. The OCT was administered to two 9th and 10th grade TABLE Frequency
of Values
Used
I to Affiliate
Occupations
Boys
9%
Values Physical-mental work Description of activity (at work) Training needed Stereotype (I) People-things Place of work (office, outdoors, Independence-dependent :e Status Theoretical-practical Conditions of work (2) Leadership Money Abilities needed Altruism Interesting-boring Creativity Original answer Social security Worker’s sex Father’s occupation Missed
out
According to chi square p < 0.001. (I) Stereotype - accepted categories that Science-Humanity, Industry-Agriculture). (2) Conditions of work - number of hours,
95
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II I2 I3 I4 I5 16 I7 18 19 20
19 17 II 7 7 6 5 4 3 2 z 2 2 I I I I
etc.)
Girls
N = 620 Rank
5 21 10 8 16 IO
? 6 2 3
a certain
uniform,
7 I 4 5 2 3 8 I3 I4 IZ I8 I5 10 6 11 9 I7 I9 I6 20
9
8
need
N = 698 Rank
amount
sitting-standing,
of abstraction etc.
(e.g.
150
BLOCHANDRIM
classes (N = 56, 50) twice (test-retest) with 6 months between the two tests (this period included the summer vacation). All the various categories of the test gave significant correlations ranging from .35 (p < 0.01) up to .8 (p << 0.001) for the 9th grade and up to .88 (p << 0.001) for the 10th grade. The average “r” after transformation toZ scores were .50 and .62, respectively. Interjudge reliability. Forty different OCT’s were classified by 38 sociology students. Interjudge reliability reached 89%; that is, 89% of all the answers were placed in the same category by all the 38 judges. Each of the 1372 tests was scored by two university students, independently. Where the scores were not identical (~3%) the test was scored by a third person. (2) Background
Questionnaire
Information about the subject’s background was obtained from a simple, straightforward questionnaire. Sex, age (grade), school, trend of study (curriculum chosen), socio-economic status (ratio of number of persons per room), father’s occupation, mother’s occupation, preferred occupation, and vocational maturity. A dimension common to many instruments in measuring the latter is evaluating the subject’s occupational information, that is what does the subject know about occupations (Gribbons & Lohnes, 1968; Super & Forest, 1972; Crites, 1973,a,b). Thus vocational maturity is based on a short description of the preferred occupation. The replies were classified independently by two raters (with a third person resolving any discrepancies) into five categories as follows: (1) unrealistic: taken from a book or TV (e.g., Della Street as the description of a secretary); (2) irrelevant: does not describe the occupation (e.g., “It gives status”); (3) scanty: contains only l-2 items of information (e.g., nurse: “Looks after patients”): (4) theoretical: contains three or more items of information describing the occupation but not the person’s activities (e.g., programmer: “Putting data into the computer and obtaining all kinds of information within seconds; works with punched cards, uses binary digits”); and (5) accurate: has at least three items describing what a person in that occupation does (e.g., manager: “Demands hard work twelve hours a day or even more. Must keep his head, decide on the spot, struggle constantly. Evaluates workers and their wages. He must know his own abilities and limitations and must be able to relate to people. He must know how to appear in public. Evaluates workers and develops them. He must overcome failures, not show off and know how to get close to the workers and yet keep a distance and know the limits”). RESULTS The data were analyzed for each independent variable (the background variables) separately, by comparing the groups which make up that vari-
LATENT
STRUCTURE
OF OCCUPATIONS
151
able. The number of groups is not the same for all variables. Sex divides into two groups, Type of School into three (for the boys) and four (for the girls), Age and SES into four, Vocational Maturity into five, Mother’s Occupation-l I, Father’s Occupation-13, Preferred Occupation-17; whereas the Trends of Study divides into the largest number of groups19. As the OCT uses different forms for the boys and girls, the comparisons were made separately for each sex. Table 1 gives the rank and percentages of the values used to explain the similarity and difference between occupations (affinities of occupations) in the triads for the whole sample. Seven values rank closely in both sexes (three very frequently and three very seldomly used values). Of particular interest is the category Original Answer which is used by only 1% of the boys and even less by the girls. This answers the fourth research question in the affirmative, namely the dimensions used by 9th to 12th grade pupils in classifying occupations can be categorized into values known to be connected to occupational choice. The third research question is, of course, answered by the body of the table, which shows the dimensions used by pupils to classify occupations. In both sexes a large percentage of the answers pertain to a few values. Three values account for nearly half the answers of the boys, whereas among the girls the two most frequently used values were used in over a third of the answers. The only variable with different occupational affinities in the triads was the school. This variable was significantly different in both sexes. Tables 2 and 3 include all the triads where at least one school shows a clear preference for one of the three possible affinities. Notice that in both sexes the comprehensive school is significantly different. For all the other variables at least II triads were affiliated in the same way by at least half of the boys. In the other five triads no one affinity was more prevalent than the others. In the case of the girls, I3 triads had the same affinity. This is in accordance with Hypothesis 1, that the background variables (except for the school) do not influence the structure of occupations, which is therefore fairly widespread. What are the values the subjects use to arrive at this prevalent structure of occupations and do the background variables influence them? To find this latent structure, we tested the values used to arrive at each clearcut affinity (only values used by at least 5% of a group were considered) and analyzed the results separately for each background variable. Seen thus the values fell naturally into three, noncontinuous clusters: (1) “Common” values (marked C in Tables 4 and 5) are really values not influenced by the background variables because whichever way the sample is divided they are the ones used by most groups. Formally a value would be marked “C” only if in any variable at most one or two groups did not use it. Actually, among the variables with less than 10 groups, usually all groups used that value.
- Manager
- Porter
- Rabbi
- Bus driver
Storekeeper Electrician
Accountant Mechanical
Street Sweeper Bus Driver
Farmer Lather
3.
4.
5.
6.
engineer
- Restaurateur
Postman Accountant
2.
affinities
- Teacher
clear
I.
with
Electrician Carpenter
Triads
Occupational
N
Affinities
45
77
84
67
30
91
%
Academic 159
TABLE 2 According to Schools
70
82
80
46
72
52
%
Type of high-school Comprehensive 71
- Boys
48
77
91
67
36
50
77
88
64
38
86
%
% 91
Total 617
Technical 387
- Insurance
comprehensive - technical comprehensive - academic technical - academic NS.
mechanic
p < 0.001. p i 0.001.
- Policeman
Storekeeper Lather
to x’:
- Aircraft
- Welder
Lecturer Musician
Car mechanic Insurance salesman
salesman
- Farmer
Teacher Musician
Welder Car Mechanic
sweeper
- Car mechanic
- Street
- Postman
salesman
Porter Car mechanic
Porter Postman
insurance Lawyer
According
12.
II.
IO.
9.
8.
7.
60
52
II
79
71
II
69
88
46
63
68
25
53
54
31
85
69
67
5
90
67
21
65
88
64
63
I4
79
64
22
62
88
6,
”
Laundress Maid
Writer Architect
keeper
keeper
Biologist
Teacher
- Store
Social worker Cosmetician
4,
- Store
- Weaver
- Chemist
affinities
Librarian Secretary
Secretary Teacher
2,
clear
3’
Nurse Stewardess
with
,,
Triads N
Occupational
95
60
76
72
72
86
%
Academic 113
Affinities
TABLE 3 According
97
48
76
57
74
86
%
Comprehensive 189
to Schools Type
- Girls
84
52
55
68
67
83
9%
of high-school Technical 147
Girls
94
51
65
73
70
83
%
Voc. 249
93
52
68
67
71
84
%
Total 698
F
e s
i2 0
F1 T
Architect Medical
Dressmaker Shop assistant
12.
13.
According
Shop assistant
Stewardess Cashier
II.
IO chi-square:
technician
Housewife
Housewife Laundress
IO.
comprehensive technical - girls
Phone
- Social
Phone
45
70
65
45
93
71
70
all others: p < 0.001. vocational-academic: NS.
operato
worker
operatot
Doctol Biologist
9.
- Cashier
worker
Chemist Cosmetician
Farm
8.
polisher
Weaver Diamond
7.
54
84
82
60
91
41
58
45
66
66
50
80
69
62
53
75
71
53
95
74
49
50
75
72
53
90
64
58
156
BLOCH ANDRIM creative theoretical conditions place leadership independence status money ability interest altruism people stereotype training physical activity
Farmer
Insurance
Car mechanic
Teacher Musician
Welder Car mechanic
Porter Postman
9.
10.
8.
*Percentage of the boys affiliating C -Common value. FC-Fairly Common value. U - Unique value.
triad
as given
salesman
mechanic
Aircraft
sweeper
Lecturer Musician
- Street
1 I.
salesman
Insurance Lawyer
- Porter
7.
engineer
Accountant Mechanical
4.
FC
c
c
in the table.
62
79
C
c
64cccuu
63
88
88
C
c
C
c
c
C
u
C
c
c
c
U
u
u
FC
c
u
u
u
u
u
U
U
U
U
FC
FC
U
u
U
FC
U
u
U
U
U
U
Y
158
BLOCH
AND
conditions money dependence status creative
ability interest place
altruism
physical
training
stereotype
activity
people
RIM
Teacher
Shop assistant
- Chemist
- Farm worker
Writer Architect
Architect Medical technician
Laundress Maid
Secretary Teacher
Librarian Secretary
Weaver Diamond polisher
Dressmaker Shop assistant
5.
12.
6.
2.
3.
7.
13. 50
58
67
71
93
75
52
84
C
FC
FC
c
u
u
FC
C
*Percentage of the girls affiliating triad as given in the table. C - Common value; FC - Fairly Common value; U - Unique value.
Phone operator
Store keeper
- Biologist
Weaver
Nurse Stewardess
I.
C
FC
C
c
c
c
FC
U
C
FC
u
c
U
U
U
FC
c
c
U
FC
FC
U
c
u
FC
C
FC
C
C
C
u
u
U
U
U
FC
FC
C
u
U
u
U
FC
9th
Interestingboring
I Ith 12th
Grade
of Background
10th 11th 12th
academic
School
Influence
Peoplethings
Stereotype
Training needed
Value
The
electronics
natural science
naturalscience
Subject trend
Variables
6
on the Latent
TABLE
teacher natural science
Father’s occ.
Structure
natural science
theoretic low
high
Prefer. occup. Vocat. maturity
Socioeconomic status
of Occupations-Boys*
* Entry
Theoreticalpractical
Conditions of work
Place of work
is made
if al least 5% of group
academic
9th
uses value
9th
in at least
three
mechanics electronics
__-
electricity
biology
Independdependence
biology electricity
academic
9th
status
Money
Abilities needed
triads.
manager business
teacher natural science secretary
middle
high
high
high
10th
10th 11th
academic technical
technical
Training needed
Physical-mental work
9th* 12th*
Grade
of Background
12th
Influence
Stereotvpe
comprehensive
Altruism
voc.
girls
School
People-things
Value
The
building chemistry*
hiology socialscience drawing
secretarial
biology socialscience
Subject trend
Variahles
Structure
business
business agruculture mechanic
agriculture secretary
teacher
Father’s occup.
TABLE 7 on the Latent
teacher housewife
teacher
teacher
teacher
Mother’s occup.
high
low
SkitUS
Socioeconomic
of Occupations-ciirisl
biology
art
teacher theoretic accurate
scanty theoretic
teacher
Prefer. occup. theoretic accurate
Vocat. maturity
” f
zi 0
F3 x
F
academic
Interestingboring
* Only group using this value on two to three triads and only group not using I Entry is made if at least 5% of group uses value in at least three triads.
domesticscience dressmaking
Independdependence
biology dressmaking
socialscience
9th
Status
Abilities needed
comprehensive technical
Place of work
it on one to two
teacher
teacher
others.
8
%
z
7 c
c”
Y
5
2
F
164
BLOCH
AND RIM
(2) “Fairly Common” values (marked “FC” in Tables 4 and 5) were used in practically all variables (5-8) by at least half the groups. Thus out of the four groups of a variable, two would use this value and in a variable having 17 groups, 10 would use it. (3) “Unique” values (marked “U” in Tables 4 and 5) are used in less than five variables, but nowhere are they used by more than three groups. (In fact. usually the value is used merely by one or two groups.) Tables 4 and 5 were arranged to draw attention to values with similar patterns of usage. In Table 4 it is possible to discern such pairs (e.g., Interesting/Boring-Abilities Needed; Money-Status; Leadership-Independence/Dependence; Conditions of Work-Place of Work): in other words, some boys use one unique value where others use the other value. No such pairs of values in the pattern of usage appear in Table 5, probably because girls have altogether few unique values. Even if one takes into account only the common and fairly common values (those used by most subjects) one finds that an average of four values are used to explain the affinity of any one triad. Thus triads may have one prevalent affinity but the values used to explain these affinities are influenced by the background variables of the pupils. There is no point in looking for patterns of influence among the “common” values, but patterns of influence could be identified among the “unique” values. To give all the relevant data would make this paper much too long; instead the results have been summarized in Tables 6 and 7. An entry is only made when at least 5% of the members of a group used that value in at least three different triads. The entry is made in the row of the unique value used and in the column of the background variable analyzed indicating in the cell the specific group which used that value. For example from Table 6 it appears that the 9th graders use consistently different unique values than the other grades. In Table 6 we find that most of the unique values come from academic high school boys or those who study one of a few selected subject trends (those demanding the highest levels of ability). They are also used more by members of the high socio-economic class and by 9th graders (the youngest pupils tested). Were it not for the latter one could explain the results with the construct of cognitive complexity (Bodden, 1970; Bodden & Klein. 1972. 1973). There is only one group which has a noticeable influence on the use of unique values with girls (Table 7). namely when the mother’s occupation is that of a teacher. Interestingly enough, this does not influence the boys. DISCUSSION We have answered Questions 3 and 4. We have also shown that Hypothesis I can be accepted as only one school has a perception of occupations which is significantly different from the universal structure. It
LATENT
STRUCTURE
OF OCCUPATIONS
165
is not clear why the comprehensive school came out differently. It is the school with the lowest ability level (though the girls’ vocational school is not much higher) and has a considerably larger group with a rural background; but it could also be due to the general atmosphere of the school. Underlying the overt, prevalent structure there is a latent structure. Some of the influences of the background variables on it have been identified; thus Hypothesis 2 (the background of the individual influences his choice of values used in classifying occupations), has been justified. On the whole, girls are more homogeneous than boys in the way they see occupations. We have already noted that they affiliated 13 triads in one way (as opposed to 11 for the boys) and in comparing Tables 4 and 5 one sees that while the number of common and fairly common values (“C” & “FC”) is approximately equal for both sexes, girls use less unique (“U”) values. Thus it is not surprising, that we find fewer influences of background variables on values among girls. In conclusion, the following points can be made: (1) The perception of occupations has two aspects: (a) the occupations that go together (affinity): (b) the dimensions used by people to decide these affinities. (2) When the values used to perceive occupations come from the subject himself, they can be categorized into a scheme of 20 different values. (3) The affinity of occupations is not influenced by most background variables (namely age, trend of study, socio-economic status, father’s occupation, mother’s occupation) nor by the level of information on the preferred occupation (vocational maturity) or the preferred occupation itself. (4) Some dimensions (values) are used frequently by most of the population. (5) Others are less frequent and some are unique, used by specific segments of the population only. (6) Girls perceive the world of occupations more uniformly than boys. Once again it is shown that the structure of occupations is almost universal, but alongside this overt structure there exists also a latent structure, specific to each individual, which explains why he sees the world of occupations in the way he does. This latent structure of occupations is influenced by the individual’s specific background. REFERENCES D., & Fransella. F. Inquiring man. Harmondsworth. Middlesex: Penguin. 1971. D.. & Mair. J. M. M. Tire e\tn/lration of personal COIIS~TUC~S. London & New Academic Press. 1968. D. C.. & O’Dowd. D. D. Students and the occupational world. In N. Sanford The American college. New York: Wiley, 1962. Pp. 597-626. W.. & Stillman. E. Dimensions ofjob incentives among college students.Journal of Applied Psychology. 1958. 42, 367-371.
Bannister. Bannister. York: Beardslee. (Ed.). Bendig. A.
166
BLOCH
Bodden,
J. L. Cognitive
Counseling
complexity
Psychology,
AND
as a factor
RIM
in appropriate
vocational
choice.
Journal
of
1970, 17, 364-368.
Bodden, J. L., & Klein, A. J. Cognitive complexity and appropriate vocational choice: Another look. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1972, 19, 257-258. Bodden, J. L., & Klein, A. J. Cognitive differentiation and effective stimulus value in vocational judgements. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 1973, 3, 75-79. Braun, J. S., & Bayer, F. Social desirability of occupations revisited. Vocational Guidance
Quarterly,
1973, 21, 202-205.
Centers, R. The psychology of social c/asses. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1949. Cole, N. S., & Hanson, G. R. An analysis of the structure of vocational interests. Journalof Counseling Psychology, 1971, 18, 478-486. Cole. N. S.. Whitney, D. R., & Holland, J. L. A spatial configuration of occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 1971, 1, 1-9. Counts, G. S. The social status of occupations: A problem in vocational guidance. School
Review,
1925. 33, 16-27.
Coxon, A. P. M. Occupational 335-354. Crites, J. 0. Parental identification
attributes.
Constructs
and structure.
Sociology.
1971, 5,
in relation to vocational interest development. Journalof Educational Psychology, 1962, 53, 262-270. Crites, J. 0. Career maturity inventory. Monterey, CA: McGraw-Hill, 1973. (a) Crites. J. 0. Career and maturity inventory: Theory and research handbook. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill, 1973. (b) M. E.. & Paterson, D. G. Changes in social status of occupations. Occupations, 1947, 25, 205-208. Dipboye, W. J.. & Anderson, W. F. Occupational stereotypes and manifest needs in high school students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1961. 8, 296-304. Doyle. R. E. Career patterns of male college graduates. Personnel and Guidance JourDeeg,
nal, 1965, 44, 410-415. Edwards, K. J.. & Whitney, D. R. A structural analysis of Holland’s personality types using factor and configural analysis. Journa/ of Counseling Psychology, 1972, 19, 136-145. Fossum. J. A.. & Moore, M. 1. The stability of longitudinal and cross-sectional occupational prestige rankings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1975. 7, 305-311. Gonyea, G. G. Dimensions of job perceptions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1961, 8, 305-312. Gonyea, G. G.. & Lunneborg, C. E. A factor analytic study of perceived occupational similarity. Journal of Applied Psycho/ogy, 1963, 47, 166-172. Gribbons. W. D., & Lohnes, P. R. Emerging careers. New York: Teachers College Press, 1968. Grunes, W. F. Looking at occupations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957, 54, 86-92. Gunn. B. Children’s conceptions of occupational prestige. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1964, 42, 558-563. Hakel. M. D.. Hollman, T. D., & Dunnette, M. D. Stability and change in the social status of occupations over 21 and 42 year periods. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1968, 46, 762-764. Hall. R. H. Occupations and the social structure (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall, 1975. Haller. A. C., Holsinger, D. B., & Saraiva, H. U. Variations in occupational prestige hierarchies: Brazilian data. American Journal of Sociology, 1972, 77, 941-956. Hodges, R. W., Siegel. P. M.. & Rossi, P. H. Occupational prestige in the United States.
American Journal of Sociology.
1964, 70, 286-302.
LATENT
STRUCTURE
OF OCCUPATIONS
167
Holland, J. L., & Whitney, D. R. Changes in rhe vocational plans of college students. Orderly or random? ACT Research Report No. 25, Iowa City: The American College Testing Program, 1968. Holland, J. L., Whitney, D. R., Cole, N. S.. & Richards, J. M. An empirical occupational classijkation derived from a theory of personality and intended for practice and research. ACT Research Report No. 29. Iowa City: The .American College Testing Program, 1969. Hutchinson, T. E.. & Roe, A. Studies of occupational history: Part II the attractiveness of occupational groups of the Roe system. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1968. 15, 107-I IO. Jones, K. J. Occupational preference and social orientation. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1965, 43, 574-579. Kelly. G. A. The psychology ofpersonalconstructs. (Vols. I & II). New York: Norton. 1955. Knefelkamp, L. An adaptation of the Perry scheme to vocational development. Counseling Psychologist, 1976. 6 (4). 53-58. Lissak. M. Patterns of change in ideology and class structure in Israel. In Eisenstadt, S. N. (Ed.), Integration and development in Israel. Jerusalem: Israel University Press 2. 1963. LoCascio. R. Continuity and discontinuity in vocational development theory. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1967. 46, 32-36. Lunneborg. C. E., & Lunneborg, P. W. Is there room for a third dimension in vocational interest differentiation? Journal of Vocational Behavior. 1977. 11, 120-127. Meir. E. I. Structural elaboration of Roe’s classification of occupations. Jerusalem: Israel’s Program for Scientific Translations. 1968. Meir, E. I. Empirical test of Roe’s structure of occupations and an alternative structure. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1970. 17, 41-48. Meir. E. I. The structure of occupations by interests. rZ smallest space analysis. Journal c?f Vocational Behavior, 1973, 3, 21-31. Meir, E. I., & Barak, A. A simple instrument for measuring vocational interests based on Roe’s classification of occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1974. 4, 33-42. Meir. E. 1.. & Hadadi, A. Relationship with people as the underlying dimension for Roe’s classification of occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 1974, 4, 139-144. North. 0. C., & Hatt, P. K. NORC jobs and occupations: A popular evaluation. Opinion News, 1947. 9, 3-13. Nosow, S., & Form. W. H. Man, \l,ork and society. New York: Basic Books, 1962. O’Connor, J.. & Kinnare. J. P. A factor analysis of work values. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1961, 8, 363-267. O’Dowd. D. D., & Beardslee. D. C. College student images of a selected group ofprofessions and occupations. USOE Cooperative Research Project No. 562(8142). Middleton. CT: Wesleyan University 1960. O’Dowd, D. D.. & Beardslee. D. C. De~~elopmenr & consistency of student images o.f occupations. USOE Cooperative Research Project No. 5-0858. Oakland University, 1967. Osipow, S. Perceptions of occupations as a function of titles and descriptions. Journal qf Counseling Psychology, 1962, 9, lO6- 109. Osipow. S. Consistency of occupational choices and Roe’s classification of occupations. Vocational Counseling Quarter/y. 1966. 14, 285-286. Plata. M. Stability and change in the prestige rankings of occupations over 49 years. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1975. 6, 95-99. Ramsey. C. E., & Smith. R. J. Japanese and American perceptions of occupations. American Journal of Sociology, 1959160. 65, 475-482. Raylesberg, D. D. A contribution to a theory of vocational choice. Psychological Senire Cenrer Journal, 1950. 3, 198-202.
168 Reeb,
BLOCH
M. The perception
of occupational
AND
RIM
structure-An
intervening
variable
in vocational
behavior. Journal of Vocational Beharpior. 1974. 4, 125-137. Roe, A. A new classification of occupations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1954, 1, 2 15-220. of occupations. New York: Wiley, 1956. Roe, A. The psychology Roe, A., Hubbard, W. D., Hutchinson. T., & Bateman, T. Job changes and the classification of occupations. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1966, 13, 387-393. Roe, A., & Hutchinson, T. Studies of occupational history: Part Ill. The stability of occupational groups of the Roe system. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1969, 16, 390-395. Roe. A., & Klos, D. Occupational classification. Counseling Psychologist. 1969. 1, 84-88. Rosenberg, M. Occupations and values. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1957. Sarapata. A., & Wesolowski, W. The evaluation of occupations by Warsaw inhabitants. American Journal of Sociology, 1960/61, 66, 581-588. Schaffer, R. H. Job satisfaction as related to need satisfaction in work. Psychological Monographs, No. 364, 1953. Simmons, R. G., & Rosenberg, M. Functions of children’s perceptions of the stratification system. American Sociological Reviebo. 1971, 36, 235-249. Simpson, R. L., & Simpson. I. H. Correlates and estimates of occupational prestige. American Journal of Sociology, 1960/61, 66, 135-140. Stavishevsky, R. A model for the translation of self concepts into vocational terms. In Career de)-elopment: .Self concept theory. New York: The Entrance Examination Board, 1963. Super. D. The structure of work values in relation to status, achievement, interests and adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1962, 46, 231-239. Super, D.. & Forest. D. J. Career development intpentory, preliminary manualfor research andj?eld trial. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1972. Weiss, D. J., Davis, R. V., England, C. W., & Lofquist, L. H. Minnesota studies in vocational rehabilitation: XVI. The measurement of vocational needs. Minneapolis: Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota, 1964.
Received:
February
9. 1978
The Latent Structure of Occupations T. BLOCH Bar-llan Uni\versity, Ramat-Can AND
Y. RIM* Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa Triads of occupations were given to 1300 high-school pupils of both sexes in order to find the affinities of the occupations and the values they used to arrive at the affinities. The values used to perceive occupations come from the subject; nevertheless they could be categorized into a scheme of 20 different values, with the residue category containing less than I% of the answers. In accordance with previous research in this field, an almost universal structure of occupations was found. The following variables had no influence on the choice of occupational affinities: age, trend of study, SES. father’s occupation, mother’s occupation. vocational maturity, and preferred occupation. Only the pupils of one school were significantly different in affiliating the occupations in the triads. Furthermore, girls perceive the world of occupations more uniformly than boys. Underlying this universal structure of occupations there exists a latent structure. specific to each individual. which explains why the world of occupations is seen in the way it is. This latent structure of occupations is influenced by the individual’s specific background.
One of the ways of simplifying the process of occupational choice is to organize occupations-into groups according to their similarities. Studies on the structure of occupations during the last two decades show that the structure is circular when viewed from the standpoint of interests (Roe, 1954; Roe, 1956; Crites, 1962; Jones, 1965; Doyle, 1965; Osipow, 1966; LoCascio, 1967; Roe, Hubbard, Hutchinson, & Bateman, 1966; Hutchinson & Roe, 1968; Meir, 1968; Holland & Whitney, 1968; Roe & Hutchinson, 1969; Roe & Klos, 1969; Meir 1970, 1973; Meir & Barak, 1974; Meir * Abraham Tulin chair of Social Sciences. Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Tova Bloch. School of Library and Information Science, University of California. Berkeley, CA 94720. 145 0001~8791/79/020145-24$02.0010 All
Copyright @ 1979 by Academic Press. Inc. rights of reproduction in any form reserved
146
BLOCH
AND
RIM
& Hadadi, 1974; Holland, Whitney, Cole, & Richards, 1969; Cole, Whitney, & Holland, 1971; Edwards & Whitney, 1972; Cole & Hanson, 1971; Lunneborg & Lunneborg, 1977). It is hierarchical when seen through the dimension of prestige (Counts, 1925; Deeg & Paterson, 1947; North & Hatt, 1947; Sarapata & Wesolowski, 1961; Simpson & Simpson, 1961; Nosow & Form, 1962; Lissak, 1963; Gunn, 1964; Hodges, Siegel, & Rossi, 1964; Hake], Hollman, & Dunnette, 1968; Ramsey & Smith, 1959; Simmons & Rosenberg, 1971; Haller, Holsinger & Saraiva, 1972; Braun & Bayer, 1973; Hall, 1975; Fossum & Moore, 1975; Plata, 1975, and many more). As far back as 1950, Raylesberg said: “One of the important determiners of vocational choice is the individual’s perceptions of the various aspects of an occupation within the frame of reference of his set of values” (Raylesberg 1950). Since then, the body of knowledge about how people see occupations has steadily grown. For example, Dipboye and Anderson (1961) found that the description of job activities gave rise to stereotypic perceptions of occupations; and Osipow (1962) reported that the mere names of the occupations influence occupational perceptions. Beardslee and O’Dowd found that college students had only vague ideas about the activities connected with various occupations. They also saw the trainee as similar to the mature worker. These perceptions did not change during the four years at college and were not influenced by the faculty (Beardslee & O’Dowd 1962; O’Dowd & Beardslee, 1960, 1967). It is not clear to what extent occupational stereotypes influence the picture because very few studies were designed with a specific view to prevent this effect. Nor did they allow the subject to choose the dimensions used to structure the occupations by himself. The earliest work in this direction is by Grunes (1957) who told high school pupils to sort 51 occupations into groups in as many ways as possible. In order to explain the structure of those occupations which appear together in at least half the cases, he gave pupils six short descriptions of activities and had them choose for .each description five occupations. The resulting analysis showed seven overlapping job clusters. The occupational structure of that research is derived directly from the subject, but the dimensions used to reach that structure are not, because they are influenced by the job descriptions. Gonyea (1961) gave students a list of 30 occupations and had them choose for each occupation the most similar of the remaining 29. Using factor analysis he found five independent factors. Gonyea and Lunneborg (1963) arranged 22 occupations in 77 triads and asked the subjects to cross out the most different occupation of the three. Also in these two studies, the occupational structure is indeed that of the subjects but the dimensions used in the process are only inferred. Triads of people (as in the original method of Kelly, 1955)rather than of occupations were used by Stavishevsky (1963) to get at the self-concepts.
LATENTSTRUCTUREOFOCCUPATIONS
147
He theorizes that if an individual sees himself as possessing traits x, y, and z (psychtalk), then he considers himself suitable for occupation A (occtalk). His model translates occtalk into psychtalk and is an indirect way of finding the occupational dimensions of the subject. Reeb (1974) considers occupational structure as an intervening variable between the stimuli from the world of occupations and occupational choice. He presented 8th grade pupils with 12 occupations in all possible pairs (66) and asked them to rank them on a scale of l-5 according to the following criterion: If a person is very suitable for the first occupation, how suitable will he be for the second one? Unfortunately, the word “suitable” limits the range of dimensions which can be elicited, because it suggests ability, training, or possibly personality. It is, however. interesting to note that the resulting structure is not influenced by socioeconomic status, the school attended, the preferred occupation, or even intelligence. Coxon (1971), in an attempt to reach the dimensions used by the subjects directly, had social science students mark in 56 triads (based on eight occupations from the social sciences) the two most similar occupations and give a name to this similarity. Unfortunately, Coxon found that 50% of the traits given were unique to the individual. He abandoned this line, took the 21 most common traits, and continued his work with the use of the semantic differential. Considering the large number of studies made on work values (Centers, 1949; Schaffer, 1953; Rosenberg, 1957; Super, 1962; Bendig & Stillman, 1958; O’Connor & Kinnane, 1961; Weiss, Davis, England, & Lofquist, 1964) to quote just a few, it seems reasonable to assume that it should be possible to classify Coxon’s “unique” concepts into work values. One of the purposes of the present study is to examine the concepts used by the subject to structure occupations and to see whether they can be sorted into work values. From the past work done on occupational structure in general and Reeb’s work in particular one can derive a universal structure of occupations which is not influenced by the individual characteristics of the subject or his background. Still people do differ in their interests and personalities, which leads one to expect that the reasons why people arrive at this universal structure are different and may be influenced by various background variables. This reasoning is considerably strengthened by Coxon’s work who found different explanations for the same occupational structure in subjects studying in the same faculty. These considerations lead us to the following hypotheses. HYPOTHESES (1) There exists a universal perception of occupations which is not influenced by the background of the individual (age, school, socio-
148
BLOCH ANDRIM
economic status, subject-trend studied, intelligence level, or parents’ occupation). (2) The background of the individual does influence the choice of values used in classifying occupations. In addition we ask the following two questions: (3) What are the dimensions used by the individual in classifying occupations? (4) Is it possible to classify these dimensions into categories of values known to be connected with occupational choice? METHOD
Subjects The first practical step towards the individual’s future occupation is taken when he chooses the subject-trend in school at the end of the 9th grade. This seemed to be a good starting point to test occupational perceptions. The sample (N = 1372) was taken from 9th-12th grades of four different types of Israeli high schools, chosen to obtain a wide range of ability levels and subject trends. Arranged by ability levels they are: (I) academic: practically all pupils matriculate and most would be expected to pursue academic studies; (2) technical: graduates become technicians but are accepted also at the technical universities; (3) girls vocational: most learn a trade and obtain a 12th-grade school leaving certificate; and (4) comprehensive: streamlined according to ability, the lower levels leaving the school after the 1lth grade; only a third matriculate and few actually enter a university. The sample covered 18 subject trends as well as pupils who had not yet chosen their trend. Instruments (I) Occupational Concept Test (OCT) The purpose of this instrument is to find which concepts the subject uses when clarifying different occupations. The method is based on Kelly’s repertory grid technique (Kelly, 1955; Bannister & Mail-, 1968; Bannister & Fransella, 1971). Occupations are presented in groups of three; the subject’s task being to decide which two have something in common that is different from the third and then to give a name to this common factor and its opposite. To classify these factors, 16 were identified in the literature on work values, namely: Physical-Mental Work (works hard, uses brains not hands); Description of Activity (uses screwdriver, gives injections): Training Needed (studies seven years, requires a degree); Stereotype (science-humanities, industry-agriculture); People-Things (meets people, works alone): Place of Work (office, outdoors): Independence-Dependence (makes his own decisions. takes orders): Status (has great honor, is more important): Conditions of Work (working
LATENT
STRUCTURE
149
OF OCCUPATIONS
hours, uniform, sitting-standing); Leadership (in charge of others, gives orders); Money (earns a lot, must be rich): Abilities Needed (physical fitness, patience); Altruism (helps people, useful to society); InterestingBoring; Creativity (designs new things); Social Security (never out of a job, has pension). Another three Theoretical-Practical (useful): Worker’s Sex, and Occupation of Father or Other Relative were found empirically (from the pretest). To these was added a residue category Original Answer (responses not fitting any of the above categories) giving a total of 20 different categories (see also Table 1). Twenty-four of the most common occupations in Israel (Census, 1970) were chosen and arranged in 16 triads, each occupation appearing twice, randomly, with two different occupations. In the first pretest some of the occupations caused confusion, with either girls or boys not understanding the occupational title or being unable to decide on common factors. Therefore, a separate form was prepared for each sex. Relirrbility. The OCT was administered to two 9th and 10th grade TABLE Frequency
of Values
Used
I to Affiliate
Occupations
Boys
9%
Values Physical-mental work Description of activity (at work) Training needed Stereotype (I) People-things Place of work (office, outdoors, Independence-dependent :e Status Theoretical-practical Conditions of work (2) Leadership Money Abilities needed Altruism Interesting-boring Creativity Original answer Social security Worker’s sex Father’s occupation Missed
out
According to chi square p < 0.001. (I) Stereotype - accepted categories that Science-Humanity, Industry-Agriculture). (2) Conditions of work - number of hours,
95
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II I2 I3 I4 I5 16 I7 18 19 20
19 17 II 7 7 6 5 4 3 2 z 2 2 I I I I
etc.)
Girls
N = 620 Rank
5 21 10 8 16 IO
? 6 2 3
a certain
uniform,
7 I 4 5 2 3 8 I3 I4 IZ I8 I5 10 6 11 9 I7 I9 I6 20
9
8
need
N = 698 Rank
amount
sitting-standing,
of abstraction etc.
(e.g.
150
BLOCHANDRIM
classes (N = 56, 50) twice (test-retest) with 6 months between the two tests (this period included the summer vacation). All the various categories of the test gave significant correlations ranging from .35 (p < 0.01) up to .8 (p << 0.001) for the 9th grade and up to .88 (p << 0.001) for the 10th grade. The average “r” after transformation toZ scores were .50 and .62, respectively. Interjudge reliability. Forty different OCT’s were classified by 38 sociology students. Interjudge reliability reached 89%; that is, 89% of all the answers were placed in the same category by all the 38 judges. Each of the 1372 tests was scored by two university students, independently. Where the scores were not identical (~3%) the test was scored by a third person. (2) Background
Questionnaire
Information about the subject’s background was obtained from a simple, straightforward questionnaire. Sex, age (grade), school, trend of study (curriculum chosen), socio-economic status (ratio of number of persons per room), father’s occupation, mother’s occupation, preferred occupation, and vocational maturity. A dimension common to many instruments in measuring the latter is evaluating the subject’s occupational information, that is what does the subject know about occupations (Gribbons & Lohnes, 1968; Super & Forest, 1972; Crites, 1973,a,b). Thus vocational maturity is based on a short description of the preferred occupation. The replies were classified independently by two raters (with a third person resolving any discrepancies) into five categories as follows: (1) unrealistic: taken from a book or TV (e.g., Della Street as the description of a secretary); (2) irrelevant: does not describe the occupation (e.g., “It gives status”); (3) scanty: contains only l-2 items of information (e.g., nurse: “Looks after patients”): (4) theoretical: contains three or more items of information describing the occupation but not the person’s activities (e.g., programmer: “Putting data into the computer and obtaining all kinds of information within seconds; works with punched cards, uses binary digits”); and (5) accurate: has at least three items describing what a person in that occupation does (e.g., manager: “Demands hard work twelve hours a day or even more. Must keep his head, decide on the spot, struggle constantly. Evaluates workers and their wages. He must know his own abilities and limitations and must be able to relate to people. He must know how to appear in public. Evaluates workers and develops them. He must overcome failures, not show off and know how to get close to the workers and yet keep a distance and know the limits”). RESULTS The data were analyzed for each independent variable (the background variables) separately, by comparing the groups which make up that vari-
LATENT
STRUCTURE
OF OCCUPATIONS
151
able. The number of groups is not the same for all variables. Sex divides into two groups, Type of School into three (for the boys) and four (for the girls), Age and SES into four, Vocational Maturity into five, Mother’s Occupation-l I, Father’s Occupation-13, Preferred Occupation-17; whereas the Trends of Study divides into the largest number of groups19. As the OCT uses different forms for the boys and girls, the comparisons were made separately for each sex. Table 1 gives the rank and percentages of the values used to explain the similarity and difference between occupations (affinities of occupations) in the triads for the whole sample. Seven values rank closely in both sexes (three very frequently and three very seldomly used values). Of particular interest is the category Original Answer which is used by only 1% of the boys and even less by the girls. This answers the fourth research question in the affirmative, namely the dimensions used by 9th to 12th grade pupils in classifying occupations can be categorized into values known to be connected to occupational choice. The third research question is, of course, answered by the body of the table, which shows the dimensions used by pupils to classify occupations. In both sexes a large percentage of the answers pertain to a few values. Three values account for nearly half the answers of the boys, whereas among the girls the two most frequently used values were used in over a third of the answers. The only variable with different occupational affinities in the triads was the school. This variable was significantly different in both sexes. Tables 2 and 3 include all the triads where at least one school shows a clear preference for one of the three possible affinities. Notice that in both sexes the comprehensive school is significantly different. For all the other variables at least II triads were affiliated in the same way by at least half of the boys. In the other five triads no one affinity was more prevalent than the others. In the case of the girls, I3 triads had the same affinity. This is in accordance with Hypothesis 1, that the background variables (except for the school) do not influence the structure of occupations, which is therefore fairly widespread. What are the values the subjects use to arrive at this prevalent structure of occupations and do the background variables influence them? To find this latent structure, we tested the values used to arrive at each clearcut affinity (only values used by at least 5% of a group were considered) and analyzed the results separately for each background variable. Seen thus the values fell naturally into three, noncontinuous clusters: (1) “Common” values (marked C in Tables 4 and 5) are really values not influenced by the background variables because whichever way the sample is divided they are the ones used by most groups. Formally a value would be marked “C” only if in any variable at most one or two groups did not use it. Actually, among the variables with less than 10 groups, usually all groups used that value.
- Manager
- Porter
- Rabbi
- Bus driver
Storekeeper Electrician
Accountant Mechanical
Street Sweeper Bus Driver
Farmer Lather
3.
4.
5.
6.
engineer
- Restaurateur
Postman Accountant
2.
affinities
- Teacher
clear
I.
with
Electrician Carpenter
Triads
Occupational
N
Affinities
45
77
84
67
30
91
%
Academic 159
TABLE 2 According to Schools
70
82
80
46
72
52
%
Type of high-school Comprehensive 71
- Boys
48
77
91
67
36
50
77
88
64
38
86
%
% 91
Total 617
Technical 387
- Insurance
comprehensive - technical comprehensive - academic technical - academic NS.
mechanic
p < 0.001. p i 0.001.
- Policeman
Storekeeper Lather
to x’:
- Aircraft
- Welder
Lecturer Musician
Car mechanic Insurance salesman
salesman
- Farmer
Teacher Musician
Welder Car Mechanic
sweeper
- Car mechanic
- Street
- Postman
salesman
Porter Car mechanic
Porter Postman
insurance Lawyer
According
12.
II.
IO.
9.
8.
7.
60
52
II
79
71
II
69
88
46
63
68
25
53
54
31
85
69
67
5
90
67
21
65
88
64
63
I4
79
64
22
62
88
6,
”
Laundress Maid
Writer Architect
keeper
keeper
Biologist
Teacher
- Store
Social worker Cosmetician
4,
- Store
- Weaver
- Chemist
affinities
Librarian Secretary
Secretary Teacher
2,
clear
3’
Nurse Stewardess
with
,,
Triads N
Occupational
95
60
76
72
72
86
%
Academic 113
Affinities
TABLE 3 According
97
48
76
57
74
86
%
Comprehensive 189
to Schools Type
- Girls
84
52
55
68
67
83
9%
of high-school Technical 147
Girls
94
51
65
73
70
83
%
Voc. 249
93
52
68
67
71
84
%
Total 698
F
e s
i2 0
F1 T
Architect Medical
Dressmaker Shop assistant
12.
13.
According
Shop assistant
Stewardess Cashier
II.
IO chi-square:
technician
Housewife
Housewife Laundress
IO.
comprehensive technical - girls
Phone
- Social
Phone
45
70
65
45
93
71
70
all others: p < 0.001. vocational-academic: NS.
operato
worker
operatot
Doctol Biologist
9.
- Cashier
worker
Chemist Cosmetician
Farm
8.
polisher
Weaver Diamond
7.
54
84
82
60
91
41
58
45
66
66
50
80
69
62
53
75
71
53
95
74
49
50
75
72
53
90
64
58
156
BLOCH ANDRIM creative theoretical conditions place leadership independence status money ability interest altruism people stereotype training physical activity
Farmer
Insurance
Car mechanic
Teacher Musician
Welder Car mechanic
Porter Postman
9.
10.
8.
*Percentage of the boys affiliating C -Common value. FC-Fairly Common value. U - Unique value.
triad
as given
salesman
mechanic
Aircraft
sweeper
Lecturer Musician
- Street
1 I.
salesman
Insurance Lawyer
- Porter
7.
engineer
Accountant Mechanical
4.
FC
c
c
in the table.
62
79
C
c
64cccuu
63
88
88
C
c
C
c
c
C
u
C
c
c
c
U
u
u
FC
c
u
u
u
u
u
U
U
U
U
FC
FC
U
u
U
FC
U
u
U
U
U
U
Y
158
BLOCH
AND
conditions money dependence status creative
ability interest place
altruism
physical
training
stereotype
activity
people
RIM
Teacher
Shop assistant
- Chemist
- Farm worker
Writer Architect
Architect Medical technician
Laundress Maid
Secretary Teacher
Librarian Secretary
Weaver Diamond polisher
Dressmaker Shop assistant
5.
12.
6.
2.
3.
7.
13. 50
58
67
71
93
75
52
84
C
FC
FC
c
u
u
FC
C
*Percentage of the girls affiliating triad as given in the table. C - Common value; FC - Fairly Common value; U - Unique value.
Phone operator
Store keeper
- Biologist
Weaver
Nurse Stewardess
I.
C
FC
C
c
c
c
FC
U
C
FC
u
c
U
U
U
FC
c
c
U
FC
FC
U
c
u
FC
C
FC
C
C
C
u
u
U
U
U
FC
FC
C
u
U
u
U
FC
9th
Interestingboring
I Ith 12th
Grade
of Background
10th 11th 12th
academic
School
Influence
Peoplethings
Stereotype
Training needed
Value
The
electronics
natural science
naturalscience
Subject trend
Variables
6
on the Latent
TABLE
teacher natural science
Father’s occ.
Structure
natural science
theoretic low
high
Prefer. occup. Vocat. maturity
Socioeconomic status
of Occupations-Boys*
* Entry
Theoreticalpractical
Conditions of work
Place of work
is made
if al least 5% of group
academic
9th
uses value
9th
in at least
three
mechanics electronics
__-
electricity
biology
Independdependence
biology electricity
academic
9th
status
Money
Abilities needed
triads.
manager business
teacher natural science secretary
middle
high
high
high
10th
10th 11th
academic technical
technical
Training needed
Physical-mental work
9th* 12th*
Grade
of Background
12th
Influence
Stereotvpe
comprehensive
Altruism
voc.
girls
School
People-things
Value
The
building chemistry*
hiology socialscience drawing
secretarial
biology socialscience
Subject trend
Variahles
Structure
business
business agruculture mechanic
agriculture secretary
teacher
Father’s occup.
TABLE 7 on the Latent
teacher housewife
teacher
teacher
teacher
Mother’s occup.
high
low
SkitUS
Socioeconomic
of Occupations-ciirisl
biology
art
teacher theoretic accurate
scanty theoretic
teacher
Prefer. occup. theoretic accurate
Vocat. maturity
” f
zi 0
F3 x
F
academic
Interestingboring
* Only group using this value on two to three triads and only group not using I Entry is made if at least 5% of group uses value in at least three triads.
domesticscience dressmaking
Independdependence
biology dressmaking
socialscience
9th
Status
Abilities needed
comprehensive technical
Place of work
it on one to two
teacher
teacher
others.
8
%
z
7 c
c”
Y
5
2
F
164
BLOCH
AND RIM
(2) “Fairly Common” values (marked “FC” in Tables 4 and 5) were used in practically all variables (5-8) by at least half the groups. Thus out of the four groups of a variable, two would use this value and in a variable having 17 groups, 10 would use it. (3) “Unique” values (marked “U” in Tables 4 and 5) are used in less than five variables, but nowhere are they used by more than three groups. (In fact. usually the value is used merely by one or two groups.) Tables 4 and 5 were arranged to draw attention to values with similar patterns of usage. In Table 4 it is possible to discern such pairs (e.g., Interesting/Boring-Abilities Needed; Money-Status; Leadership-Independence/Dependence; Conditions of Work-Place of Work): in other words, some boys use one unique value where others use the other value. No such pairs of values in the pattern of usage appear in Table 5, probably because girls have altogether few unique values. Even if one takes into account only the common and fairly common values (those used by most subjects) one finds that an average of four values are used to explain the affinity of any one triad. Thus triads may have one prevalent affinity but the values used to explain these affinities are influenced by the background variables of the pupils. There is no point in looking for patterns of influence among the “common” values, but patterns of influence could be identified among the “unique” values. To give all the relevant data would make this paper much too long; instead the results have been summarized in Tables 6 and 7. An entry is only made when at least 5% of the members of a group used that value in at least three different triads. The entry is made in the row of the unique value used and in the column of the background variable analyzed indicating in the cell the specific group which used that value. For example from Table 6 it appears that the 9th graders use consistently different unique values than the other grades. In Table 6 we find that most of the unique values come from academic high school boys or those who study one of a few selected subject trends (those demanding the highest levels of ability). They are also used more by members of the high socio-economic class and by 9th graders (the youngest pupils tested). Were it not for the latter one could explain the results with the construct of cognitive complexity (Bodden, 1970; Bodden & Klein. 1972. 1973). There is only one group which has a noticeable influence on the use of unique values with girls (Table 7). namely when the mother’s occupation is that of a teacher. Interestingly enough, this does not influence the boys. DISCUSSION We have answered Questions 3 and 4. We have also shown that Hypothesis I can be accepted as only one school has a perception of occupations which is significantly different from the universal structure. It
LATENT
STRUCTURE
OF OCCUPATIONS
165
is not clear why the comprehensive school came out differently. It is the school with the lowest ability level (though the girls’ vocational school is not much higher) and has a considerably larger group with a rural background; but it could also be due to the general atmosphere of the school. Underlying the overt, prevalent structure there is a latent structure. Some of the influences of the background variables on it have been identified; thus Hypothesis 2 (the background of the individual influences his choice of values used in classifying occupations), has been justified. On the whole, girls are more homogeneous than boys in the way they see occupations. We have already noted that they affiliated 13 triads in one way (as opposed to 11 for the boys) and in comparing Tables 4 and 5 one sees that while the number of common and fairly common values (“C” & “FC”) is approximately equal for both sexes, girls use less unique (“U”) values. Thus it is not surprising, that we find fewer influences of background variables on values among girls. In conclusion, the following points can be made: (1) The perception of occupations has two aspects: (a) the occupations that go together (affinity): (b) the dimensions used by people to decide these affinities. (2) When the values used to perceive occupations come from the subject himself, they can be categorized into a scheme of 20 different values. (3) The affinity of occupations is not influenced by most background variables (namely age, trend of study, socio-economic status, father’s occupation, mother’s occupation) nor by the level of information on the preferred occupation (vocational maturity) or the preferred occupation itself. (4) Some dimensions (values) are used frequently by most of the population. (5) Others are less frequent and some are unique, used by specific segments of the population only. (6) Girls perceive the world of occupations more uniformly than boys. Once again it is shown that the structure of occupations is almost universal, but alongside this overt structure there exists also a latent structure, specific to each individual, which explains why he sees the world of occupations in the way he does. This latent structure of occupations is influenced by the individual’s specific background. REFERENCES D., & Fransella. F. Inquiring man. Harmondsworth. Middlesex: Penguin. 1971. D.. & Mair. J. M. M. Tire e\tn/lration of personal COIIS~TUC~S. London & New Academic Press. 1968. D. C.. & O’Dowd. D. D. Students and the occupational world. In N. Sanford The American college. New York: Wiley, 1962. Pp. 597-626. W.. & Stillman. E. Dimensions ofjob incentives among college students.Journal of Applied Psychology. 1958. 42, 367-371.
Bannister. Bannister. York: Beardslee. (Ed.). Bendig. A.
166
BLOCH
Bodden,
J. L. Cognitive
Counseling
complexity
Psychology,
AND
as a factor
RIM
in appropriate
vocational
choice.
Journal
of
1970, 17, 364-368.
Bodden, J. L., & Klein, A. J. Cognitive complexity and appropriate vocational choice: Another look. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1972, 19, 257-258. Bodden, J. L., & Klein, A. J. Cognitive differentiation and effective stimulus value in vocational judgements. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 1973, 3, 75-79. Braun, J. S., & Bayer, F. Social desirability of occupations revisited. Vocational Guidance
Quarterly,
1973, 21, 202-205.
Centers, R. The psychology of social c/asses. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1949. Cole, N. S., & Hanson, G. R. An analysis of the structure of vocational interests. Journalof Counseling Psychology, 1971, 18, 478-486. Cole. N. S.. Whitney, D. R., & Holland, J. L. A spatial configuration of occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 1971, 1, 1-9. Counts, G. S. The social status of occupations: A problem in vocational guidance. School
Review,
1925. 33, 16-27.
Coxon, A. P. M. Occupational 335-354. Crites, J. 0. Parental identification
attributes.
Constructs
and structure.
Sociology.
1971, 5,
in relation to vocational interest development. Journalof Educational Psychology, 1962, 53, 262-270. Crites, J. 0. Career maturity inventory. Monterey, CA: McGraw-Hill, 1973. (a) Crites. J. 0. Career and maturity inventory: Theory and research handbook. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill, 1973. (b) M. E.. & Paterson, D. G. Changes in social status of occupations. Occupations, 1947, 25, 205-208. Dipboye, W. J.. & Anderson, W. F. Occupational stereotypes and manifest needs in high school students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1961. 8, 296-304. Doyle. R. E. Career patterns of male college graduates. Personnel and Guidance JourDeeg,
nal, 1965, 44, 410-415. Edwards, K. J.. & Whitney, D. R. A structural analysis of Holland’s personality types using factor and configural analysis. Journa/ of Counseling Psychology, 1972, 19, 136-145. Fossum. J. A.. & Moore, M. 1. The stability of longitudinal and cross-sectional occupational prestige rankings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1975. 7, 305-311. Gonyea, G. G. Dimensions of job perceptions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1961, 8, 305-312. Gonyea, G. G.. & Lunneborg, C. E. A factor analytic study of perceived occupational similarity. Journal of Applied Psycho/ogy, 1963, 47, 166-172. Gribbons. W. D., & Lohnes, P. R. Emerging careers. New York: Teachers College Press, 1968. Grunes, W. F. Looking at occupations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957, 54, 86-92. Gunn. B. Children’s conceptions of occupational prestige. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1964, 42, 558-563. Hakel. M. D.. Hollman, T. D., & Dunnette, M. D. Stability and change in the social status of occupations over 21 and 42 year periods. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1968, 46, 762-764. Hall. R. H. Occupations and the social structure (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall, 1975. Haller. A. C., Holsinger, D. B., & Saraiva, H. U. Variations in occupational prestige hierarchies: Brazilian data. American Journal of Sociology, 1972, 77, 941-956. Hodges, R. W., Siegel. P. M.. & Rossi, P. H. Occupational prestige in the United States.
American Journal of Sociology.
1964, 70, 286-302.
LATENT
STRUCTURE
OF OCCUPATIONS
167
Holland, J. L., & Whitney, D. R. Changes in rhe vocational plans of college students. Orderly or random? ACT Research Report No. 25, Iowa City: The American College Testing Program, 1968. Holland, J. L., Whitney, D. R., Cole, N. S.. & Richards, J. M. An empirical occupational classijkation derived from a theory of personality and intended for practice and research. ACT Research Report No. 29. Iowa City: The .American College Testing Program, 1969. Hutchinson, T. E.. & Roe, A. Studies of occupational history: Part II the attractiveness of occupational groups of the Roe system. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1968. 15, 107-I IO. Jones, K. J. Occupational preference and social orientation. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1965, 43, 574-579. Kelly. G. A. The psychology ofpersonalconstructs. (Vols. I & II). New York: Norton. 1955. Knefelkamp, L. An adaptation of the Perry scheme to vocational development. Counseling Psychologist, 1976. 6 (4). 53-58. Lissak. M. Patterns of change in ideology and class structure in Israel. In Eisenstadt, S. N. (Ed.), Integration and development in Israel. Jerusalem: Israel University Press 2. 1963. LoCascio. R. Continuity and discontinuity in vocational development theory. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1967. 46, 32-36. Lunneborg. C. E., & Lunneborg, P. W. Is there room for a third dimension in vocational interest differentiation? Journal of Vocational Behavior. 1977. 11, 120-127. Meir. E. I. Structural elaboration of Roe’s classification of occupations. Jerusalem: Israel’s Program for Scientific Translations. 1968. Meir, E. I. Empirical test of Roe’s structure of occupations and an alternative structure. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1970. 17, 41-48. Meir. E. I. The structure of occupations by interests. rZ smallest space analysis. Journal c?f Vocational Behavior, 1973, 3, 21-31. Meir, E. I., & Barak, A. A simple instrument for measuring vocational interests based on Roe’s classification of occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1974. 4, 33-42. Meir. E. 1.. & Hadadi, A. Relationship with people as the underlying dimension for Roe’s classification of occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 1974, 4, 139-144. North. 0. C., & Hatt, P. K. NORC jobs and occupations: A popular evaluation. Opinion News, 1947. 9, 3-13. Nosow, S., & Form. W. H. Man, \l,ork and society. New York: Basic Books, 1962. O’Connor, J.. & Kinnare. J. P. A factor analysis of work values. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1961, 8, 363-267. O’Dowd. D. D., & Beardslee. D. C. College student images of a selected group ofprofessions and occupations. USOE Cooperative Research Project No. 562(8142). Middleton. CT: Wesleyan University 1960. O’Dowd, D. D.. & Beardslee. D. C. De~~elopmenr & consistency of student images o.f occupations. USOE Cooperative Research Project No. 5-0858. Oakland University, 1967. Osipow, S. Perceptions of occupations as a function of titles and descriptions. Journal qf Counseling Psychology, 1962, 9, lO6- 109. Osipow. S. Consistency of occupational choices and Roe’s classification of occupations. Vocational Counseling Quarter/y. 1966. 14, 285-286. Plata. M. Stability and change in the prestige rankings of occupations over 49 years. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1975. 6, 95-99. Ramsey. C. E., & Smith. R. J. Japanese and American perceptions of occupations. American Journal of Sociology, 1959160. 65, 475-482. Raylesberg, D. D. A contribution to a theory of vocational choice. Psychological Senire Cenrer Journal, 1950. 3, 198-202.
168 Reeb,
BLOCH
M. The perception
of occupational
AND
RIM
structure-An
intervening
variable
in vocational
behavior. Journal of Vocational Beharpior. 1974. 4, 125-137. Roe, A. A new classification of occupations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1954, 1, 2 15-220. of occupations. New York: Wiley, 1956. Roe, A. The psychology Roe, A., Hubbard, W. D., Hutchinson. T., & Bateman, T. Job changes and the classification of occupations. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1966, 13, 387-393. Roe, A., & Hutchinson, T. Studies of occupational history: Part Ill. The stability of occupational groups of the Roe system. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1969, 16, 390-395. Roe. A., & Klos, D. Occupational classification. Counseling Psychologist. 1969. 1, 84-88. Rosenberg, M. Occupations and values. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1957. Sarapata. A., & Wesolowski, W. The evaluation of occupations by Warsaw inhabitants. American Journal of Sociology, 1960/61, 66, 581-588. Schaffer, R. H. Job satisfaction as related to need satisfaction in work. Psychological Monographs, No. 364, 1953. Simmons, R. G., & Rosenberg, M. Functions of children’s perceptions of the stratification system. American Sociological Reviebo. 1971, 36, 235-249. Simpson, R. L., & Simpson. I. H. Correlates and estimates of occupational prestige. American Journal of Sociology, 1960/61, 66, 135-140. Stavishevsky, R. A model for the translation of self concepts into vocational terms. In Career de)-elopment: .Self concept theory. New York: The Entrance Examination Board, 1963. Super. D. The structure of work values in relation to status, achievement, interests and adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1962, 46, 231-239. Super, D.. & Forest. D. J. Career development intpentory, preliminary manualfor research andj?eld trial. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1972. Weiss, D. J., Davis, R. V., England, C. W., & Lofquist, L. H. Minnesota studies in vocational rehabilitation: XVI. The measurement of vocational needs. Minneapolis: Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota, 1964.
Received:
February
9. 1978