Journal ofhttp://jca.sagepub.

com/
Career Assessment

Validation of a Four-Factor Model of Career Indecision

Steven D. Brown, Jason Hacker, Matthew Abrams, Andrea Carr, Christopher Rector, Kristen Lamp,
Kyle Telander and Anne Siena
Journal of Career Assessment 2012 20: 3 originally published online 29 August 2011
DOI: 10.1177/1069072711417154

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jca.sagepub.com/content/20/1/3

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Career Assessment can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jca.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jca.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jca.sagepub.com/content/20/1/3.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jan 12, 2012

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Aug 29, 2011

What is This?

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CO HEALTH SCIENCE CTR on October 13, 2014
 Journal of Career Assessment
20(1) 3-21
ª The Author(s) 2012
Validation of a Four-Factor Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Model of Career Indecision DOI: 10.1177/1069072711417154
http://jca.sagepub.com

Steven D. Brown1, Jason Hacker1,

Matthew Abrams1, Andrea Carr1,
Christopher Rector1, Kristen Lamp1,
Kyle Telander1, and Anne Siena1

Abstract
Two studies were designed to explore whether a meta-analytically derived four-factor model of
career indecision (Brown & Rector, 2008) could be replicated at the primary and secondary data
levels. In the first study, an initial pool of 167 items was written based on 35 different instruments
whose scores had loaded saliently on at least one factor in the Brown and Rector meta-analysis.
These items were then administered to a sample of undergraduate college students and the resultant
inter-item correlation matrix was subjected to principal axis factoring with oblique rotations.
A four-factor solution was uncovered that resembled the four-factor meta-analytically derived solu-
tion but with a few theoretically and practically interesting exceptions. A second study used two
existing correlation matrices derived from Gati and colleagues’ cognitive and personality/emotional
models of career indecision. Exploratory factor analyses of these matrices revealed that the current
four-factor model could, in part, be uncovered from these matrices as well. The theoretical and
counseling implications of the results are discussed and future research directions are articulated.

Keywords
career indecision, chronic indecisiveness, choice anxiety, lack of readiness, interpersonal conflict

Two meta-analyses of the career intervention outcome literature have converged on two inescapable
findings; namely, that (a) career interventions for choice-making difficulties are demonstrably effec-
tive but (b) the magnitude of their effects is modest (i.e., clients receiving some form of career inter-
vention achieve about a third of a standard deviation better outcome than persons who receive no
formal career help; Brown & Ryan Krane, 2000; Whiston, Brecheisen, & Stephens, 2003). Several
suggestions have also been provided about how the effectiveness of career interventions can be
improved; some of these predated and anticipated the meta-analytic results (see Brown & McPart-
land, 2005; Miller & Brown, 2005; Whiston & Rahardja, 2008). For example, various writers have
observed that the sources of clients’ decision-making difficulties are diverse (Crites, 1969; Holland

1
Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

Corresponding Author:
Steven D. Brown, School of Education, Loyola University Chicago, 820 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
Email: sbrown@luc.edu

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CO HEALTH SCIENCE CTR on October 13, 2014
4 Journal of Career Assessment 20(1)

& Holland, 1977; Salmone, 1982; Tyler, 1969; Williamson, 1965), interventions should be targeted
to the sources of clients’ difficulties (Savickas, 1989), and this matching process would be facili-
tated, and outcomes improved, by clearly derived and empirically supported vocational problem
diagnostic systems (Rounds & Tinsley, 1984; Savickas, 1989).
These earlier writings seemed to have stimulated a large body of research exploring correlates of
career indecision, factor analyzing a small subset of possible correlates, and developing instruments to
measure various aspects of career indecision. Brown and Rector (2008) identified over 50 variables
that had been explored as possible correlates of indecision and at least five factor analytic studies that
yielded from three to eight possible underlying sources of career decision-making difficulties. Extant
instruments also provide scales to measure an equally diverse set of indecision difficulties, including
chronic indecisiveness, career information needs, career choice anxiety, self-clarity, work role sal-
ience, lack of motivation, career myths, dysfunctional career thoughts, vocational identity,
approach-approach conflict, internal and external barriers, and interpersonal conflicts.
Unfortunately, only a modicum of attention seems to have been devoted to integrating this liter-
ature in a way that would yield meaningful taxonomies of career choice-making difficulties. Gati
and his colleagues have developed two such systems over the past 14 years—one based on a decision
theory approach (Gati, Krausz, & Osipow, 1996) and the other on personality and emotional factors
that might underlie career choice difficulties (Saka, Gati, & Kelly, 2008). The former system distin-
guishes between difficulties that may arise prior to decision making (i.e., lack of readiness due to low
motivation, general indecisiveness, and dysfunctional beliefs) and those that occur as a person is in
the process of deciding (i.e., lack of information about the process, self, and occupations; inconsis-
tent information due to the receipt of unreliable information or internal and external conflicts). The
latter system posits that personality and emotional factors interfere with career decision-making
via three avenues—(a) pessimistic views about the process of decision making, the world of work,
and personal control; (b) anxiety about the process, uncertainty, choice making, and outcomes; and
(c) self and identity factors associated with generalized anxiety, self-esteem, uncrystallized voca-
tional identity, and interpersonal conflicts. Each system has yielded a measure that can be used in
research as well as in counseling and vocational guidance (Amir, Gati, & Kleiman, 2008; Gati
et al., 1996; Gati, Osipow, Krausz, & Saka, 2000; Saka et al., 2008).
Brown and Rector (2008), more recently, took a different approach to identifying underlying
sources of indecision, reasoning that variables that had been found to be related to career indecision
in previous research represented excellent starting places to identify higher order latent variables
that might account for substantial covariation among these measured variables. If a few higher order
constructs could be uncovered via factor analysis, these might provide a comprehensive, theoreti-
cally meaningful, and clinically useful taxonomy of career decision-making difficulties. Thus, rather
than taking a top-down rational/theoretic approach as did Gati and colleagues, Brown and Rector
(2008) took a bottom-up, data-driven approach by identifying 28 published correlation matrices that
included collectively at least one measure of variables that had been found in the prior literature to be
related to career indecision. They then factored each of these matrices via principal axis factoring
with oblique rotations, engaged in an iterative procedure to identify common factors, and meta-
analytically combined factor loadings to arrive at a loading for each variable on each factor.
The result was a four-factor solution that is illustrated in Table 1. The first factor was defined
primarily by (a) high levels of anxiety (both trait and state), depressive affect, and trait neuroticism;
(b) low levels of self-esteem, psychological hardiness, and general problem solving confidence; (c) a
tendency to focus on and fear what will go wrong with decisions (fear of commitment), engage in
avoidant coping efforts, and rely on others when making important decisions (dependent decision-
making style); and (d) beliefs that life is under the control of chance, powerful others, or other exter-
nal factors (external locus of control). The first factor was also marked by measures of chronic inde-
cisiveness that asked people directly about the chronicity and generality of decision-making

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CO HEALTH SCIENCE CTR on October 13, 2014
Brown et al. 5

Table 1. Factor Loading Matrix From Brown and Rector (2008)

Factors

Manifest Variables I II III IV

Trait Anxietya (k ¼ 12) .90 .09 .08 .06

Hardiness (k ¼ 2) .88 – – .04
Depression (k ¼ 4) .85 – – .14
State Anxietyb (k ¼ 12) .76 .10 .11 .11
Fear of Commitment (k ¼ 6) .69 – – .30
Self-Esteem (k ¼ 7) .67 – .03 .07
Indecisivenessc (k ¼ 3) .63 .05 .06 .26
Trait Neuroticism (k ¼ 1) .61 – – .13
Self-Criticism (k ¼ 2) .60 – – –
Dependent Decision-Making Style (k ¼ 1) .52 – – .02
External Locus of Controld (k ¼ 7) .48 – .15 .06
Problem Solving Confidence (k ¼ 2) .48 – – .12
Positive (Behavioral) Coping Style (k ¼ 4) .48 – – –
Finding Additional Information (k ¼ 4) .01 .91 .07 .09
Lack of Occupational Information (k ¼ 9) .07 .75 .05 .12
Lack of Self Information (k ¼ 7) .15 .66 .22 .33
Lack of Information on the Process (k ¼ 4) – .64 .06 .23
Approach-Approach Conflict (k ¼ 2) .05 .53 .31 –
External Barriers (k ¼ 3) .17 .20 .68 –
Situational Constraints (k ¼ 1) .08 .13 .62 .28
Interpersonal Conflict (k ¼ 6) .10 .05 .52 .04
Unreliable Information (k ¼ 4) .01 .41 .50 .09
CDS Indecision (k ¼ 8) .05 .17 .18 .88
Vocational Exploration and Commitment (k ¼ 2) – – .09 .88
Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy (k ¼ 5) – – .09 .85
Vocational Identity (k ¼ 4) .12 .21 .03 .84
Rational Decision-Making Style (k ¼ 1) .02 – – .76
Lack of Motivation (k ¼ 4) – .12 .14 .71
Lack of Self-Clarity (k ¼ 8) .10 .14 .11 .70
Goal Instability (k ¼ 3) – – .08 .67
Intuitive Decision-Making Style (k ¼ 1) .07 – – .67
Career Maturity Attitudes (k ¼ 2) .05 .29 – .66
Dysfunctional Thinking/Career Myths (k ¼ 5) .09 .01 .06 .62
Achieved Ego Identity Status (k ¼ 2) – – – .54
Trait Conscientiousness (k ¼ 1) .11 – – .46
Choice/Work Importance (k ¼ 4) – .16 – .44
Approach-Avoidance Style (k ¼ 1) .13 – – .35
Note: Empty cells indicate that the row variable was never included with other markers of the column factor. Salient loadings
of .30 or higher are in boldface. k ¼ number of matrices that included a measure of this manifest variable. Factor I ¼ Indeci-
siveness/Trait Negative Affect, Factor II ¼ Information Deficits, Factor III ¼ Interpersonal Conflicts and Barriers, and Factor
IV ¼ Lack of Readiness
a
Includes measures of trait and manifest anxiety.
b
Includes measures of state, career-choice, and social anxiety.
c
Includes CFI and CDP Indecisiveness scales.
d
Includes measures of external, powerful others, and chance locus of control.
Reprinted with permission of the authors.

difficulties. Brown and Rector (2008) labeled this a chronic indecisiveness/negative affectivity factor
because the variables that loaded saliently on it were consistent with prior literature on chronic indeci-
siveness (e.g., Salmone, 1982) and negative affectivity (Tellegen, 1985; Watson & Clark, 1989).

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CO HEALTH SCIENCE CTR on October 13, 2014
6 Journal of Career Assessment 20(1)

The second factor clearly reflected a lack of information latent dimension with the only other
variable showing a salient loading on this factor being a measure of approach-approach conflict.
Brown and Rector (2008) labeled this a need for information factor and suggested that the salient
loading of approach–approach conflict reflects the possibility that many people with information
deficits may not be seeking out additional options but rather need additional information to decide
between a couple of good options.
The third factor seemed to reflect an external barrier/interpersonal conflict latent dimension (with
measures of external barriers and conflict with significant others having salient loadings), while the
fourth factor appeared to be a bit more complex. It was marked saliently by measures of identity
diffusion, lack of self-clarity, and low career decision-making self-efficacy beliefs. It was also
defined by measures of immature career attitudes, unstable career goals, a lack of motivation to
make and commit to a career choice, and low conscientiousness. High scorers on this factor were
also less likely to be in an ego-achieved identity status. Brown and Rector (2008) suggested that the
pattern of loadings was consistent with developmental conceptions of a lack of readiness to make a
career decision (e.g., Peterson, Sampson, Lenz, & Reardon, 2002; Phillips, 1992). Thus, it may be
that ‘‘high scorers’’ on this factor may not have yet developed the attitudes, self-knowledge, goal
setting, and decision-making skills (and confidence) to make or commit to a vocational choice.
Although the results of the Brown and Rector (2008) meta-analysis offer a promising, comprehen-
sive, and data-driven conception of sources of career decision-making difficulties, they require repli-
cation before their robustness can be established. The primary goal of this report was to provide further
insight into the Brown and Rector (2008) four-factor model of career indecision. To accomplish this
objective, we first (Study 1) created a 167-item inventory that comprehensively covered at the item
level all variables that loaded saliently on at least one factor in the Brown and Rector (2008) meta-
analysis. We then administered the measure to a sample of undergraduate students and subjected the
resultant inter-item correlation matrix to a principal factor analysis with oblique rotations to explore
whether the four- factor structure could be replicated using original rather than meta-analytic data.
Our second approach (Study 2) was to use published correlation matrices of Gati and colleagues’
alternative cognitive and personality/emotional models of career indecision to explore whether a
similar four-factor model could be extracted from these data sets. Should we find that the four-
factor model of career indecision can be uncovered via primary and secondary analyses as well
as meta-analytically, this would provide strong evidence that the four-factor model represents an
empirically and conceptually reasonable representation of the major sources of difficulty that people
(in this case college undergraduates) may experience in their attempts to arrive at a career choice.

Study 1
The primary purpose of this study was to explore factor analytically whether Brown and
Rector’s (2008) four-factor model of career indecision provides a reasonable representation of the
major sources of career indecision among college students. A 167-item inventory was developed,
administered to a representative sample of college students, and factor analyzed via exploratory
factor analysis.

Method
Instrument Development
Table 1 displays the 37 variables measured by 35 different instruments that loaded saliently on at least
one of the four factors in Brown and Rector’s (2008) meta-analytically derived factor analysis. In order
to ensure comprehensive coverage of all relevant variables, we used the 35 instruments to create items
for the questionnaire, termed the Career Indecision Profile-167 (CIP-167), used in this study. A list of

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CO HEALTH SCIENCE CTR on October 13, 2014
Brown et al. 7

instruments along with variables measured by each is available from the first author upon request. We
studied the test manuals (when available) and items to write an initial set of 221 new items that concep-
tually covered all major variables (facets) associated with Brown and Rector’s (2008) four-factor model.
After eliminating highly redundant items, we created a 167-item instrument. The final set of items was
also written to ensure adequate factor and facet saturation: each of the 37 saliently loading variables
(facets) identified in the Brown and Rector (2008) factor analysis was represented by 4-6 items. The
CIP-167 also contained a page to collect demographic information (e.g., age, year in school, gender,
and race/ethnicity) on each participant as well as questions about the participants’ current level of
career decidedness (1 ¼ very undecided, 6 ¼ very decided) and the importance of making a career
decision now (1¼ very unimportant, 6 ¼ very important).

Participants and Procedures. The CIP-167 was administered in classrooms to 183 undergraduates
from two Midwestern universities. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of both
universities and all participants signed, and turned in, informed consent forms before completing the
CIP. In order to ensure that an adequate range of scores would be obtained, the inventory was admi-
nistered to students enrolled in one-semester career development courses taken by undecided students
as well as in psychology, education, research methodology, and statistics courses at the two univer-
sities. Inventories completed by eight respondents contained greater than 5% (k ¼ 8) missing items
and were eliminated from subsequent analyses. Missing values on the remaining inventories (those
with fewer than 8 missing values) were imputed via mean substitution. Missing values on these inven-
tories ranged from 1 (n ¼ 34) to six (n ¼ 1). A total of 114 (62%) of the initial 183 inventories contained
no missing values.
The final sample was, therefore, composed of 175 participants with a mean age of 23.91 years
(SD ¼ 8.17, range 17-57) and mean level of career decidedness of 4.37 (SD ¼ 1.37, range ¼ 1-6) and
decision importance of 5.02 (SD ¼ 1.33, range ¼ 1–6). Women comprised 77.1% (n ¼ 135) and men
comprised 22.9% (n ¼ 40) of the sample. The majority of the sample was Caucasian (n ¼ 116; 63.4%).
The remainder of the sample included 33 (18.0%) African Americans, 10 (5.5%) Mexican Americans
or others of Hispanic descent, 7 (3.8%) multiracial, 3 (1.6%) Asian Americans, and 1 (0.5%) Native
American. A total of 3 (1.6%) participants indicated their race/ethnicity to be ‘‘other,’’ while 2 (1.1%)
failed to answer this demographic question.
Although a total sample size of 175 may seem inadequate for a factor analysis of 167 measured
variables, data on sample size requirements in exploratory factor analysis suggest that sample size
requirements hinge much less on the number of measured variables than on the quality of the mea-
sured variables and the degree to which factors are saturated. Specifically, prior research has sug-
gested that if initial communalities among measured variables are high (equal to or greater than
.70) and the factors are highly saturated with 4–6 measured variables per factor, samples sizes as
small as 100 may be adequate to uncover a meaningful and replicable solution (Fabrigar, Wegener,
MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999; MacCallum, Widamen, Zhang, & Hong, 1999). The initial commun-
ality estimates obtained in our analysis ranged from .91 to .99 and we wrote 4–6 items to represent
each facet (which could represent a separate factor). Thus, a sample size of 175 was adequate.

Data Analysis. The distribution of scores for each item was first inspected to identify items that yielded
an insufficient range of responses or substantial skew (skew > 2.00) or kurtosis (kurtosis > 7.00). Four
items were eliminated from the 167-item measure. The inter-item correlation matrix of the remaining
163 items was then subjected to a principal factor analysis with an oblique (direct oblimin) rotation. Four
major criteria were used to determine how many factors to extract before rotation. The first three criteria
were (a) the scree test (Cattell, 1966), (b) parallel analysis (Horn, 1965; O’Connor, 2000), and (c) factor
interpretability. As a fourth criterion, we also factored the inter-item correlation matrix with a maximum
likelihood (ML; Browne, Cudeck, Tateneni, & Mels, 2008) procedure and inspected the Root Mean

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CO HEALTH SCIENCE CTR on October 13, 2014
8 Journal of Career Assessment 20(1)

Square Errors of Approximation (RMSEA) to explore the incremental fit of solutions with an increasing
number of factors (see Fabrigar et al., 1999). The items were sufficiently univariate normal (skew < 2.00
and kurtosis <.7.00; see Fabrigar et al., 1999) to justify a ML solution.

Results and Discussion

Exploratory Factor Analyses
The 163-item inter-correlation matrix was first subjected to principal factor and ML analyses. The
scree test suggested from 4 to 6 meaningful and reproducible latent variables in the reduced correla-
tion matrix (with squared multiple correlations in the diagonal), with 4 factors suggested by the ML
solution and 6 suggested by the parallel analysis criterion.
We thus extracted four-, five-, and six-factor solutions and rotated each obliquely via the direct obli-
min rotation method (we assumed, from the results of the Brown and Rector meta-analysis, that the fac-
tors would be correlated). The sixth factor in the six-factor solution was small (6 items with loadings
equal or greater to .40) with substantial cross-loadings (4 of the 6 items had loadings of .30 or greater
on other factors). On the other hand, both the four- and the five-factor solutions yielded interpretable
factors (with minimal cross-loadings) that substantially reproduced Brown and Rector’s (2008) solution.
The main difference between the four- and five-factor solutions was that in the latter solution, items
developed to measure career decision-making self-efficacy beliefs split from the lack of readiness factor
to form a separate career decision-making self-efficacy factor.
However, when we eliminated items from the four- and five-factor solutions that did not load sali-
ently on any factor (loadings < .40) or cross-loaded saliently (loading > .30) on more than one factor
and re-extracted and rotated to four- and five-factor solutions, the five-factor solution deteriorated
markedly, yielding a fifth factor with only two saliently loading items. On the other hand, the four-
factor solution obtained after eliminating cross-loading and non-saliently loading items continued
to yield an interpretable solution that was similar to the solution obtained with the larger correlation
matrix. The four-factor solution accounted for 44.91% variance in the reduced correlation matrix.
Thus, the four-factor solution appeared to reasonably represent the data and is reproduced in Table 2.
An inspection of Table 2 reveals that the four-factor solution uncovered in this study was similar
to Brown and Rector’s (2008) four-factor meta-analytically derived solution. Four factors were
obtained that contained items tapping into high levels of trait anxiety, depressive affect, fear of com-
mitment, dependent decision-making styles, and low levels of psychological hardiness (Factor I);
high needs for self- and occupational information and approach-approach conflicts (Factor II); low
goal directedness, career decision-making self-efficacy beliefs, and planfulness/conscientiousness
(Factor III); and high levels of interpersonal conflict (Factor IV). There were, however, some inter-
esting differences from the Brown and Rector meta-analysis that may shed new light on sources of
career indecision that could have implications for future research and career practice.
One difference was that Factor I, while highly similar to Brown and Rector’s Indecisiveness/Trait
Neuroticism factor, now more closely resembled a trait neuroticism/negative affectivity latent
dimension in two important ways. First, the items remaining on this factor represent at least four
of the six major facets of neuroticism as identified in past research (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992),
including trait anxiety (i.e., nervousness, apprehensiveness, and a tendency to dwell on things that
might go wrong), depressive affect (e.g., feelings of hopelessness and discouragement), self-
consciousness (e.g., embarrassment, feelings of inferiority, and shyness), and vulnerability (e.g., dif-
ficulty coping with stress and dependency). Second, items representing an external locus of control,
which has been found to be a correlate rather than a defining facet of trait neuroticism (Costa &
McCrae, 1992), failed to load saliently on this or any other factor in the current analysis.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CO HEALTH SCIENCE CTR on October 13, 2014
Brown et al. 9

Table 2. Four-Factor Matrix for the CFI-167 after Non-Saliently and Saliently Cross-Loading Items were
Removed (Upper Panel) and Loadings of Indecisiveness Items (Lower Panel)

Factor Factor Factor Factor

Item I II III IV

Often feel fearful and anxious .78 .08 .07 .02

Frequently feel overwhelmed .76 .05 .12 .08
Take setbacks harder than other people .75 .07 .10 .05
Takes a long time to feel good after a setback .71 .09 .02 .02
Often feel insecure .71 .05 .15 .08
Hard time forgetting when something goes wrong .71 .13 .03 .01
Often feel tired and worn out .71 .00 .11 .00
I am a worrier .67 .16 .17 .14
Easily embarrassed .66 .06 .08 .10
Feel ashamed of self .65 .06 .27 .09
Sleeping more or less lately .63 .11 .09 .12
So sad it’s hard to go on .63 .17 .13 .15
Stress makes me ill .62 .09 .01 .08
Worry about what others think of me .62 .01 .04 .17
Often feel like crying .61 .03 .10 .03
Focus on what will go wrong with decisions .61 .18 .04 .07
Don’t have energy to pursue ideas .61 .01 .18 .08
Trouble concentrating .60 .01 .11 .13
Hard to get things done when upset .58 .09 .04 .06
Eating more or less lately .58 .14 .10 .13
Can’t measure up to own standards .58 .14 .06 .07
Hard to cope with more than one or two problems at a time .57 .05 .08 .00
Lack energy to do anything .57 .11 .19 .19
Need encouragement and support from others when making a .56 .24 .06 .04
decision
Think about alternatives didn’t choose after a decision .55 .17 .01 .07
Hard to overcome shyness .55 .13 .10 .05
Worry about whether others like me .53 .14 .08 .12
Hope problems will just go away .53 .10 .05 .10
So many ideas are overwhelming .52 .18 .01 .11
Hard deciding without help .52 .28 .16 .08
Hope problems will take care of themselves .50 .10 .11 .00
No confidence in decisions unless friends support them .50 .22 .16 .20
Feel good about myself as a person (R) .50 .10 .35 .00
Keep thoughts to self so friends won’t disapprove .47 .15 .07 .12
Often hope for a miracle .47 .01 .10 .18
Problems too complex to solve .44 .01 .31 .10
Feel relieved if someone decides for me. .42 .25 .24 .04
Depend on others to make my decisions .36 .21 .30 .04
Hard time narrowing my interests .15 .80 .16 .11
Need to learn more about my interests .03 .76 .00 .00
Feel stuck because don’t know enough about occupations .09 .75 .15 .04
Need to learn how to make a good career decision .19 .74 .12 .00
Conflicted because of a number of appealing careers .12 .74 .13 .10
Nervous when thinking about picking a career .18 .74 .03 .01
Not enough occupational information .14 .72 .10 .00
Can’t commit because don’t know other available options .06 .72 .13 .07
Need information on occupations would succeed in .09 .72 .05 .11

(continued)

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CO HEALTH SCIENCE CTR on October 13, 2014
10 Journal of Career Assessment 20(1)

Table 2 (continued)

Factor Factor Factor Factor

Item I II III IV

Difficult because like so many things .11 .72 .06 .08

Need to learn more about what I want .07 .71 .01 .08
My interests change too much .05 .71 .09 .02
Concerned my goals may change after deciding .06 .69 .02 .05
Need information on careers I might like .10 .69 .03 .08
Need to learn more about myself .23 .68 .07 .07
Need to know more about job opportunities before deciding .03 .68 .14 .01
Feel discouraged about making a career decision .21 .68 .09 .03
Concerned interests might change after deciding .16 .67 .01 .02
Need a clearer picture of my abilities .13 .64 .01 .09
Don’t know much about occupations I’m considering .10 .63 .16 .11
Hard time deciding between a couple of good options .04 .62 .21 .00
Sometimes feel directionless .15 .61 .14 .05
Don’t know where to get information .12 .59 .15 .02
I like to keep my options open .16 .59 .02 .10
Uncomfortable committing myself .05 .58 .15 .06
Familiar with options but not ready to commit .07 .57 .02 .12
Hard to find career that will allow time with friends or family .23 .48 .09 .17
Breathing gets tight when thinking about deciding .24 .42 .10 .08
Put off making decisions .28 .42 .26 .03
Hard to find a career that gives time for non-work interests .21 .42 .13 .20
I try to excel at everything (R) .12 .05 .69 .08
Work productively to get job done (R) .03 .04 .65 .02
Strive hard to achieve goals (R) .17 .08 .63 .10
With enough effort I can solve anything (R) .16 .23 .61 .09
Able to carry out my plans (R) .04 .07 .58 .00
Verify information before deciding (R) .02 .01 .56 .07
Think carefully about decisions (R) .15 .11 .55 .11
Plan ahead for important decisions (R) .02 .04 .54 .18
I’m a worthwhile person (R) .18 .13 .53 .06
Confident I’ll achieve my goals (R) .18 .26 .53 .06
When bad things happen I keep going (R) .19 .02 .51 .04
Confident will find career perform well in (R) .05 .24 .51 .07
Be able to find a career that fits interests (R) .11 .18 .47 .07
Confident will overcome obstacles (R) .25 .24 .47 .03
Thoroughly consider consequences before deciding (R) .06 .01 .43 .17
Think of creative solutions to problems (R) .11 .03 .42 .04
Trust my ability to solve problems (R) .39 .04 .41 .03
Trust feelings when deciding .19 .14 .40 .15
Confident my choice will be acceptable to important others (R) .00 .03 .36 .30
Liking a career is necessary for a fulfilling life .20 .13 .34 .20
Important people disagree with my choice .04 .01 .14 .85
Important people do not support my choice .07 .11 .07 .80
Important people discourage my choice .12 .08 .11 .72
Important people give me conflicting information .08 .17 .05 .67
Go against wishes of others with my choice .17 .03 .11 .62
Only one occupation for each person .11 .03 .03 .37
Racial/ethnic discrimination makes it hard to pursue what I want .07 .17 .04 .30
A career is a life-time commitment .01 .01 .04 .28

(continued)

10

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CO HEALTH SCIENCE CTR on October 13, 2014
Brown et al. 11

Table 2 (continued)

Factor Factor Factor Factor

Item I II III IV

I don’t plan because what happens is a matter of luck .06 .20 .19 .28
Luck is why good things happen .20 .03 .21 .23
Don’t have to think about decisions because right answer .01 .03 .02 .19
pops into my head
Chronic Indecisiveness Items
Worry I’ll make the wrong decision .53 .37 .01 .05
Have trouble making decisions .46 .45 .11 .07
Feel trapped when making a decision .47 .36 .09 .14
Decision-making feels unclear .41 .39 .24 .07
Uncertain about my decisions .34 .53 .12 .06
Decision-making is frustrating .46 .51 .08 .09
I am an indecisive person .38 .42 .21 .10
Friends tell me I have trouble deciding .33 .41 .21 .10
Change my mind a lot .33 .44 .17 .12
Put off making decisions .35 .44 .26 .09

Note: Salient loadings (greater than .40) and cross-loadings (greater than .30) are in bold. R ¼ Reverse scored items.
Factor I ¼ Neuroticism/Negative Affectivity, Factor II ¼ Choice/Commitment Anxiety, Factor III ¼ Lack of Readiness,
Factor IV ¼ Interpersonal Conflict.

A second, potentially more important difference was found on Factor II. All information-related
items and approach-approach conflict items continued to load on this factor. However, additional
items reflecting an inability to commit to, and anxiety about making, a decision also loaded highly
on the second factor along with related items signifying a difficulty narrowing interests, concerns
that interests and goals may change, and conflicts among a number of appealing options. We, there-
fore, relabeled this as a Choice/Commitment Anxiety factor. Interestingly, when considered at the
total score level, measures of vocational exploration and commitment (e.g., Blustein, Devenis, &
Kidney, 1989) loaded saliently on the Lack of Readiness factor in the Brown and Rector (2008)
meta-analytic model. However, when considered at the item level, items that we wrote to reflect
a difficulty committing to a choice loaded saliently only on the second factor in the present analysis.
A third finding with potentially useful implications is revealed in the bottom panel of Table 2;
namely, that the 10 items initially written to measure respondents’ levels of chronic indecisiveness
showed substantial cross-loadings on both Factors I and II. In addition to describing themselves as inde-
cisive, high scorers on both factors indicated that they were often uncertain about their decisions, put off
making decisions, felt frustrated with, and worried about, the decision-making process, and often felt
trapped. These results, if replicated, would suggest that chronic indecisiveness is not a unitary construct
but rather may have two different (but related) underlying causes—the emotional and behavioral char-
acteristics of trait neuroticism (i.e., the tendency to dwell on what will go wrong with a decision and the
concomitant emotional reactions) or an inability to commit to a decision because of the availability of a
number of appealing options and a concern about what might be given up or what might change. Persons
scoring high on the first factor may have chronic problems with decision making (or at least see them-
selves as indecisive) because they tend to focus on the negative aspects of different options, be relatively
dissatisfied with available options, and, as a consequence, see few good options. On the other hand, per-
sons scoring high on Factor II may be chronically frustrated in their decision-making efforts because
they perceive a number of attractive options and feel unable to commit to any one of them for fear that
they may change or may eliminate an option that they will regret later.

11

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CO HEALTH SCIENCE CTR on October 13, 2014
12 Journal of Career Assessment 20(1)

Factors III and IV in the present analysis are mostly consistent with Brown and Rector’s (2008)
Lack of Readiness and External Barriers/Interpersonal Conflict factors. The former reflects a lack of
goal-directedness, planning, and confidence in career decision-making abilities, and a less than
rational, more intuitive, decision-making style. The fourth factor in the present analysis, however,
represents more of an interpersonal conflict factor, with most external barriers items (e.g., discrim-
ination and lack of resources) failing to load saliently on any factor. The latter findings may be attri-
butable to our college student sample or to the possibility that various forms of barriers do not share
enough variance among themselves at the item level to coalesce into a single latent dimension. For
example, persons experiencing one form of discrimination (e.g., discrimination on the basis of race)
may not concomitantly experience other forms of discrimination (e.g., discrimination due to age or
disability status) with nearly equal frequency. As a result, items asking about each type of discrim-
ination may share insufficient common variance to form a single latent variable in factor analysis.

Study 2
The purpose of this study was to explore whether the four-factor model identified in Study 1 could be
uncovered from Gati and colleagues’ three-factor cognitive and personality/emotional models of
career decision-making difficulties. Gati et al.’s (1996) cognitive model hypothesizes that career
decision-making difficulties are associated with three major cognitive sources: (a) Lack of Readi-
ness, (b) Lack of Information, and (c) Inconsistent Information. Each of the three major sources
is further hypothesized to be influenced by a series of lower order facets. For Lack of Readiness,
these include lack of motivation, indecisiveness, dysfunctional myths, and lack of knowledge about
the process of career decision making (i.e., persons who are not ready to make a decision may lack
motivation, be generally indecisive, adhere to dysfunctional myths about careers, and/or lack knowl-
edge of how to make decisions). People who have difficulty due to a lack of information may need
information about the self, occupations, and ways of obtaining further information. Finally, people
may receive inconsistent information due to internal conflicts, external conflicts, or because they
receive unreliable information from others. The Career Decision-Making Difficulties Questionnaire
(CDDQ; Gati et al., 1996) contains 10 scales to measure each of the facets as well as the higher order
decision-making difficulty sources.
At the facet level, there are clear parallels between this model and the four-factor model uncov-
ered in Study 1. For example, both models posit that chronic indecisiveness, information needs, and
interpersonal conflicts are significant sources of choice-making difficulties. However, our four-
factor model would reconfigure these facets by considering chronic indecisiveness as a facet of
career choice anxiety/commitment and, therefore, hypothesize that chronic indecisiveness would
load more strongly with information needs than with a lack of readiness. Both models would expect
an interpersonal conflict factor to emerge (called an Inconsistent Information factor by Gati and col-
leagues). The Gati model contains two facets (lack of motivation and dysfunctional beliefs) that do
not have parallels in the present four-factor model and also does not include facets that are clearly
affectivity related. Thus, we posited that a reconfigured choice anxiety/commitment factor (that
includes indecisiveness and information needs) and an interpersonal conflict factor would emerge
from our secondary analysis. We had no hypotheses about the loadings of the lack of motivation and
career myths facets.
Saka et al.’s (2008) personality/emotional model of career decision-making difficulties also
hypothesizes that three major personality/emotional factors can underlie career decision-making
difficulties: (a) Pessimistic Views, (b) Anxiety, and (c) Self and Identity factors. Each of these
higher order factors can be influenced by a series of lower order facets associated with pessimistic
views about the process, the world of work, and one’s personal control (Pessimistic Views); anxiety
associated with the process of decision making, uncertainty, the choice itself, and its outcomes

12

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CO HEALTH SCIENCE CTR on October 13, 2014
Brown et al. 13

(Anxiety); and general anxiety, self-esteem, uncrystallized identity, and conflictual attachments
(Self and Identity). The Emotional and Personality Career Difficulties Scale (EPCD; Saka et al.,
2008) was designed to provide a measure of each of the 11 facets and three higher order constructs.
There are again parallels between this model and our four-factor model. Both posit that anxiety
can significantly affect the decision-making process as can pessimistic views and identity factors.
However, our four-factor model would reconfigure some of these facets. First, our four-factor model
would hypothesize that general anxiety and self-esteem, as central features of neuroticism, would
move from Saka et al.’s Self and Identity factor and form their own factor, while the conflictual
attachment and separation facet would stand alone as its own factor (Interpersonal Conflict). The
items on the pessimistic view of the process facet subscale (e.g., ‘‘I can’t find out enough about all
occupations to make the right choice’’ and ‘‘I can’t take all relevant considerations into account
when choosing a career’’) could alternatively be viewed as reflecting choice/commitment anxiety
(see Table 2) and thus could be hypothesized to load more strongly on an anxiety than on a pessi-
mistic views factor. Similarly, items on the uncrystallized identity scale seem also to reflect com-
mitment problems (e.g., ‘‘My estimates of my skills and abilities change often’’ and ‘‘I still don’t
know what my vocational interests are’’). These could also load on an anxiety factor (rather than
on the self and identity factor). Thus, we posited that a reconfigured anxiety factor (paralleling our
Choice Anxiety/Commitment factor) would emerge that includes pessimistic views about the pro-
cess and uncrystalized identity along with the other anxiety facets of the Saka et al. model. We fur-
ther hypothesized that a neuroticism/negative affectivity factor composed of the generalized anxiety and
self-esteem facets would emerge from our secondary analysis as well as a single facet factor (Interper-
sonal Conflicts) marked only by Saka et al.’s Conflictual Attachment and Separation facet. There were,
again, no clear parallels between Saka et al.’s pessimistic views of the world of work and personal con-
trol facets so we had no hypotheses about how these might fit with our four-factor model, although they
might together suggest some degree of lack of readiness and thus form a factor of their own.
In sum, we sought to explore whether aspects of the present four-factor model could be uncovered
via secondary analysis of published correlation matrices. Specifically, we hypothesized that the
Indecisiveness facet of Gati et al.’s (1996) cognitive model would load more strongly with their
Lack of Information than with their Lack of Readiness factor (reflecting Choice/Commitment Anxi-
ety in our model) and that an interpersonal conflicts factor would emerge that is identical to Gati and
colleagues’ Inconsistent Information factor. We had no a priori notions about the likely loadings of
the CDDQ’s lack of motivation and dysfunctional myths facets. In the case of the personality/emo-
tional model, we hypothesized that a reconfigured choice anxiety/commitment factor would emerge
as well as a single facet interpersonal conflict factor and a two-facet neuroticism (Generalized Anxi-
ety and Self-Esteem) factor. We had no hypotheses about the loadings of the pessimistic views of
work and personal control facets.

Method
We used two published inter-facet correlation matrices for our secondary analyses. In order to
explore our notions about how Gati et al.’s cognitive model might be reconfigured on the basis
of our four-factor model, we used the matrix provided by Gati et al. (1996) for 304 U.S. college stu-
dents (lower diagonal of Gati et al., 1996, Table 2, p. 516). For our reanalysis of the Personality/
Emotional model, we used the matrix for 276 U.S. college students published as Appendix A (lower
diagonal) in Saka et al. (2008, p. 421).
Because we could not fully specify either model (i.e., no hypotheses could be made about load-
ings for lack of motivation, dysfunctional myths, pessimistic views of work, and personal control
facets), we subjected the two correlation matrices to exploratory factor analyses via principal axis
factoring, extracted three and four factors, and rotated the solutions obliquely (direct oblimin).

13

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CO HEALTH SCIENCE CTR on October 13, 2014
14 Journal of Career Assessment 20(1)

Table 3. Factor Loading Matrix From Reanalysis of Gati et al.’s (1996) Cognitive Model

Facets From Gati et al.’s Model Factor I Factor II Factor III

Lack of Motivation .29 .15 .29

General Indecisiveness .46 .31 .07
Dysfunctional Career Beliefs .03 .47 .01
Information on the Decision-Making Process .92 .02 .07
Information on the Self .71 .08 .20
Information on Occupations .73 .01 .11
How to Get Additional Information .73 .01 .11
Receipt of Unreliable Information from Others .10 .01 .79
Internal Conflict .02 .12 .87
External Conflict .03 .07 .60
Note: Salient loadings are in boldface.

Table 4. Factor Loading Matrix From Reanalysis of Saka et al.’s (2008) Personality/Emotional Model

Facets From Saka et al.’s Model Factor I Factor II Factor III Factor IV

Pessimistic Views on the Process .50 .08 .44 .16

Pessimistic Views on World of Work .10 .04 .68 .02
Pessimistic Views of Personal Control .07 .04 .58 .12
Anxiety about the Process .79 .03 .04 .10
Anxiety Due to Uncertainty .83 .07 .00 .03
Anxiety about Choosing .92 .03 .06 .08
Anxiety about the Outcome .68 .07 .04 .00
General Anxiety .15 .49 .00 .30
Self Esteem .06 .98 .06 .04
Uncrystallized Identity .51 .39 .10 .27
Conflictual Attachments .18 .15 .28 .45
Note: Salient loadings are in boldface.

Results and Discussion

Results of our secondary factor analysis of the CDDQ (cognitive model) inter-facet correlation matrix
yielded an interpretable three-factor solution that largely supported our a priori expectations. As shown
in Table 3, saliently loading facets on the first factor were consistent with our four factor model—all
information facets loaded saliently (.73–.92) on this factor along with the indecisiveness facet (.46). The
third factor, as hypothesized by both models, was marked by the unreliable information, internal con-
flict, and external conflict facets. Lack of motivation did not load saliently on any of the three factors,
and dysfunctional beliefs seemed to form its own factor. Thus, it appears, as hypothesized, that at least
two factors of our four-factor model are extractable from this correlation matrix. In addition, the com-
position of the first factor is more consistent with our model than with Gati et al.’s cognitive model in that
both general indecisiveness and information needs load on a single factor.
The results of our factor analysis of the inter-correlations of the EPCD (personality/emotional
model) facets yielded an interpretable four-factor solution that is presented in Table 4. As hypothe-
sized, the first factor was marked by pessimistic views of the process and uncrystallized identity
along with the other four anxiety facets, while the fourth factor was a single facet conflictual attach-
ment and separation (interpersonal conflict) factor. Both generalized anxiety and self-esteem, as
hypothesized, loaded together on the second factor, while the two facets about which we had no
hypotheses (pessimistic views of the world of work and personal control) formed the third factor.

14

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CO HEALTH SCIENCE CTR on October 13, 2014
Brown et al. 15

Thus, it appears that Gati and colleagues’ cognitive and personality/emotional models can be recast,
in part, in terms of our four-factor model. First, a choice/commitment anxiety factor potentially
emerged from both analyses, with indecisiveness and information facets loading together in the anal-
ysis of the cognitive model and pessimistic views of the process and uncrystallized identity loading
with anxiety facets in the analysis of the personality/emotional model.
Second, an interpersonal conflict factor emerged from both analyses. Although this factor was
consistent with Gati and colleagues cognitive model, it may not be just another facet of self and iden-
tity as hypothesized by the personality/emotional model. As hypothesized by our four-factor model,
it may instead be a stand-alone factor that is as important to choice-making problems as is neuroti-
cism/negative affectivity, choice/commitment anxiety, and lack of readiness. Third, in the matrix
that included neuroticism facets, both generalized anxiety and self-esteem formed a single factor that
was more consistent with our four-factor model than with Saka et al.’s personality/emotional model
(i.e., self-esteem and anxiety did not load together with uncrystallized identity and conflictual
attachment and separation). Together, these results, which are consistent with our four-factor model,
suggest that both neuroticism/negative affectivity (or at least generalized anxiety and self-esteem)
and interpersonal conflict should be considered as major sources of career indecision in their own
right and not simply as facets of something else. Finally, in both analyses there were two facets that
did not seem to have parallels in our four-factor model and these, in both cases, emerged as separate
factors. For the cognitive model, these were lack of motivation and dysfunctional beliefs, while for
the personality/emotional model they were pessimistic views of the world of work and personal con-
trol. Whether these two factors represent additional stand-alone factors or are facets of one of our
four factors (e.g., lack of readiness) awaits further research.

General Discussion
Taken collectively, the results of our two studies suggest that a somewhat modified version of Brown
and Rector’s (2008) four-factor model of career indecision may represent a comprehensive, empiri-
cally meaningful, and practically useful way of conceptualizing career decision-making difficulties.
Factor analytic results of our original data suggested that a four-factor model could represent ade-
quately the covariation among the items on the CIP-167. These factor analytic results also pointed
out some modifications to Brown and Rector’s model that found additional support when used to
reconfigure Gati and colleagues cognitive and personality/emotional models of career indecision.
We will in this discussion first highlight what we consider to be the most important findings from
our studies, focusing specifically on each factor. In the process, we will also attempt to embed each
of the four factors in a beginning nomological network to direct future research and counseling
efforts. We will then note some limitations of the present research and finish by outlining future
research that is necessary to establish the robustness of the current model.

Neuroticism/Negative Affectivity (Factor I)

The first and potentially most important finding of our initial study was that chronic indecisiveness
might not be a unidimensional construct but rather may be influenced by (or at least associated with)
two different underlying causes. One appears to be the emotional and behavioral characteristics of
trait neuroticism (e.g., the tendency to dwell on and worry about the potential negative consequences
of available options and the affective concomitants of this negative cognitive/perceptual style).
Persons scoring high on the Neuroticism/Negative Affectivity factor may have chronic problems
with decision making (or at least see themselves as indecisive) because they tend to focus on the neg-
ative aspects of different options, be relatively dissatisfied with available options, and, consequently,
see few good options. If we are correct that this factor represents trait neuroticism, we would further

15

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CO HEALTH SCIENCE CTR on October 13, 2014
16 Journal of Career Assessment 20(1)

hypothesize based on prior research on trait neuroticism, that the stress associated with decision mak-
ing may lead to various avoidance options, including prematurely foreclosing on an available option
despite being less than satisfied with it. Thus, future research on trait neuroticism and its relation to
career indecision might explore the degree to which scores on the first factor (or other measures of
trait neuroticism) relate to a tendency to foreclose and to satisfaction with the selected option. Indeed,
others (e.g., Blustein & Phillips, 1990) have found a positive relation between dependent decision-
making style (a facet of trait neuroticism) and foreclosed identity statuses (Marcia, 1980). Further,
prior cluster analytic studies (see Brown & Rector, 2008) have all identified a cluster of college stu-
dents and career center clients with characteristics that would identify them according to our model as
relatively high in trait neuroticism (high trait anxiety and low self-esteem, self-reported indecisive-
ness, and dependent decision-making styles). It is noteworthy that, in one of the cluster analytic stud-
ies, Wanberg and Muchinsky (1992) identified two clusters of decided and two clusters of undecided
students. One of the decided clusters (labeled as ‘‘concerned decided individuals’’), comprising 40%
of the sample, displayed a pattern of scores on other measures that would identify them as high in trait
neuroticism (i.e., low self-esteem and high trait anxiety and self-reported indecisiveness), despite the
fact that they also considered themselves to be career decided.
Taken together, these results suggest the possibility that persons scoring high on neuroticism/
negative affectivity may prematurely foreclose on available options (as an avoidance strategy) by
perhaps relying excessively on the input from others. At the same time, they may not be highly
satisfied with their choice. An area for future research would be to examine more closely the
relations of trait neuroticism/negative affectivity to levels of decidedness, satisfaction, and com-
mitment. The relation of neuroticism/negative affectivity to identity status also merits attention.
We would hypothesize that neuroticism/negative affectivity will relate more strongly to fore-
closed identity statuses than to achieved, moratorium, or diffuse identity status.
Another avenue for future research would be to explore the relations between scores on
the CIP-167 Neuroticism/Negative Affectivity scale and scores on separate measures of neuroti-
cism and negative affectivity. There is still some disagreement in the literature about whether
Neuroticism (N) and Negative Affectivity (NA) represent the same (e.g., Tellegen, 1985), related
(Watson & Clark, 1989), or hierarchically structured constructs (Nemanick & Munz, 1997), with
most of the evidence suggesting that they are not synonymous. Correlations between measures of
each are relatively large (e.g., r ¼ .58; Watson, Weise, Vaidya, & Tellegen, 1999), but N rarely has
been found to predict significant additional variance in various measures of satisfaction (e.g., job
and life) over and above NA. Assuming that our Neuroticism/Negative Affectivity scale is accu-
rately named (i.e., that the affectivity dimension is adequately represented) we would further
hypothesize that persons scoring high versus low on this scale may display persistent self-doubt
(Watson & Pennebacker, 1989), less ambitious career and educational goals (Cook, Vance, &
Spector, 2000), create more performance constraints for themselves (Spector & Jex, 1998),
and demonstrate low levels of task (e.g., career decision making) motivation (Kaplan, Bradley,
Luchman, & Haynes, 2009).

Choice/Commitment Anxiety (Factor II)

The second potential underlying dimension of chronic indecisiveness may be an inability to commit
to a decision because of a number of appealing options and a concern about what might be sacrificed
in selecting among them (choice/commitment anxiety). Persons scoring high on the Choice/Com-
mitment Anxiety factor may perceive themselves to be indecisive and to feel frustrated and trapped
in the decision-making process, but for different reasons than those scoring high on the Neuroticism/
Negative Affectivity factor. In particular, they may perceive a number of good options available to
them but feel unable to commit for fear that they may change or may eliminate options that they will

16

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CO HEALTH SCIENCE CTR on October 13, 2014
Brown et al. 17

later regret. They also seem to feel that they lack information and that (perhaps) further information
may allow them to bring closure to their decisional dilemma.
This pattern of characteristics also finds some parallels in the cluster analytic literature (see
Brown & Rector, 2008). Specifically, Larson, Heppner, Ham, and Dugan (1988) identified a cluster
(Informed Indecisives) of undergraduates who concomitantly displayed rather high levels of anxiety
about the process and high needs for career information, despite having more information than oth-
ers in the sample. Larson et al. further noted that career planning specialists indicated that these cli-
ents could be frustrating. They seemed to be highly motivated and informed, but their counseling
sessions seemed to be unsuccessful and the counselors’ patience was often tested. Our discussions
with college career counseling center staff echo this sentiment and also provide another interesting
possibility for research—that the current economy is exacerbating the tendency to try to keep all
options open and to resist committing to any option for as long as possible. Thus, we might suggest
that future research explore the relations of scores on the Choice/Commitment Anxiety scale to
counseling outcome and to students’ concerns about their futures in the current economic climate.
Another direction for future research involves the relation between choice/commitment anxiety
and decision-making tendencies. Schwartz et al. (2002) expanded on Simon’s (1955, 1956, 1957)
classic work on choice making under conditions of uncertainty and found that persons who tend
to use maximizing versus satisficing strategies were less satisfied with their choices. Maximizers,
according to Schwartz et al. (2002), seek out the best possible option and engage in exhaustive
search efforts, while satisficers seek good enough options and stop searching when that option is
found. Subsequent research has also shown that maximizers tend to become more fixated on options,
explore more options, and experience greater levels of anxiety than do satisficers. For example, in a
study of the job search process of graduating college seniors, Iyengar, Wells, and Schwartz (2006)
found that, compared to satisficers, maximizers planned to apply for more jobs (20 vs. 10), experi-
enced more anxiety in the process, sought out more information, were less satisfied with their choices,
and retrospectively wished they had applied for more jobs. Thus, it would be interesting to explore the
relations of maximizing and satisficing tendencies to scores on the CIP-167, especially the Choice/
Commitment Anxiety scale, and to test whether such tendencies might add uniquely to the prediction
of Factor II scores over and above such contextual factors as concern about the current economy.

Lack of Readiness (Factor III)

In addition to the multisource influence on chronic indecisiveness, this study replicated the Brown
and Rector (2008) meta-analysis by identifying a factor that might be related to career decision
readiness. This factor was marked primarily by a lack of planfulness and goal directedness and
by low career decision-making self-efficacy beliefs. As Brown and Rector (2008) noted, such a con-
stellation of characteristics may not be problematic until the time to make a career decision becomes
imminent and may provide excellent targets for career development activities in educational con-
texts, with a focus on acquiring more rationally focused decision-making skills, facilitating career
decision-making self-efficacy belief development, and increasing goal-directedness and planfulness.
Interestingly, recent research (e.g., Guay, Ratelle, Senecal, Larose, & Deschenes, 2006; Guay,
Senecal, Gauthier, & Fernet, 2003) that has explored adolescent career decision status longitudinally
has generated two findings of relevance to the present discussion. First, Guay et al. (2006) found that
changes in career decision-making self-efficacy beliefs were the strongest predictors of change in
decision status overtime (i.e., changes in levels of career indecision). Thus, as suggested by Guay
et al. (2006), increasing career decision-making self-efficacy beliefs may be a very important com-
ponent of early intervention efforts.
Second, Guay et al. (2003, 2006) found that parental autonomy support had both direct and indi-
rect effects (via self-efficacy belief development) on decisional status over time. In other words,

17

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CO HEALTH SCIENCE CTR on October 13, 2014
18 Journal of Career Assessment 20(1)

adolescents whose parents encouraged autonomy tended to become less undecided and developed
more robust career decision-making self-efficacy beliefs over the course of the study than did ado-
lescents whose parents were less autonomy supporting.
The findings concerning parent autonomy support are consistent both with Brown and Rec-
tor’s (2008) meta-analysis and with suggestions we have received in our presentations to prac-
ticing career counselors. Brown and Rector’s meta-analysis included measures of adult
attachment styles (Collins & Read, 1990) and psychological separation (Hoffman, 1984). Two
scales from these instruments (conflictual and functional independence from parents) loaded,
albeit non-saliently, on the Lack of Readiness factor. These results suggest that the degree
to which college students have achieved functional and conflictual independence from their
parents (as well as autonomy support) may be associated with college students’ levels of deci-
sional readiness. The college career counselors with whom we have spoken have also consis-
tently indicated that many students they see display the pattern of characteristics associated
with our lack of readiness factor and also noted that the career decision seems to be one of the
first major decisions that these students have ever had to make on their own. Thus, we would
suggest that future research on the role of family attachment and separation in career develop-
ment might profit by taking a more fine-grained approach and focusing on the relation of fam-
ily variables to lack of readiness rather than to global measures of career decidedness or
development (see Whiston & Keller, 2004).

Interpersonal Conflicts (Factor IV)

Finally, the fourth factor that emerged from this study appeared uniquely to be an interpersonal con-
flicts factor. These findings suggest a number of questions for future research on the CIP. The first is
to explore why items associated with external barriers and discrimination did not load as highly on
this factor as scales measuring these loaded in the Brown and Rector (2008) meta-analysis. We have
suggested two possibilities: that barriers and discrimination are not perceived as particularly career
limiting by college students (we found no race/ethnicity difference on the mean scores obtained by
our sample on this scale) or that they covary with insufficient frequency to form a homogeneous
factor. Thus, future research needs to use the CIP-167 with more diverse (in terms of age, race, eth-
nicity, socioeconomic status, and sexual orientation) samples to explore whether a separate external
barriers/discrimination factor might emerge or whether external barrier- and discrimination-oriented
items might load saliently on the interpersonal conflicts factor (as found in the Brown and Rector
meta-analysis).
It would also be interesting to compare the relations of interpersonal conflict and career inde-
cision in collectivist versus more individualist cultures and to explore whether level of accultura-
tion might moderate the relation between interpersonal conflict and indecision. For example, past
research (e.g., Mau, 2004; Ma & Yeh, 2005) has suggested that family conflict may play a sig-
nificant role in the career decision status of Asian American high school and college students,
especially when students are more acculturated to mainstream U.S. culture than are their parents.
It is possible that level of acculturation may moderate the relations between scores on the CIP-
167 Interpersonal Conflict scale and career status for Asian American college students and stu-
dents from other recent immigrant groups whose cultures of origin are more collectivistic than
individualistic.

Limitations and Future Directions

Although the findings of our studies may have important implications for future research and prac-
tice, they are currently limited, as noted earlier, by the homogeneity of our sample. Our findings

18

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CO HEALTH SCIENCE CTR on October 13, 2014
Brown et al. 19

obviously need to be replicated in more diverse U.S. and international samples. Such research may
not only provide greater clarity on the major factors related to career decision-making difficulties but
also allow us to identify sources of difficulty that may be universal versus others that are more cul-
turally specific.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Michelle Johnson and Tom Sak for assistance with this research and Dr. Robert Lent,
Theresa Chan, Anneliese Kranz, Colleen Martin, and Meaghan Rowe-Johnson for reading and commenting on
earlier drafts of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article: Jason Hacker, Mathew Abrams, Andrea Carr, Kristen Lamp, and Kyle Telander
were supported by Graduate Assistantships provided by the Graduate School and School of Education of
Loyola University Chicago.

References
Amir, T., Gati, I., & Kleiman, T. (2008). Understanding career decision-making difficulties. Journal of Career
Assessment, 16, 281–309.
Blustein, D. L., Devenis, L. E., & Kidney, B. (1989). Relationship between the identity formation process and
career development. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 196–202.
Blustein, D. L., & Phillips, S. D. (1990). Relation of ego identity status and decision-making styles. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 37, 160–168.
Brown, S. D., & McPartland, E. B. (2005). Career interventions: Current status and future directions. In W.
B. Walsh & M. L. Savickas (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology (3rd ed., pp. 195–226). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, S. D., & Rector, C. C. (2008). Conceptualizing and diagnosing problems in career decision-making. In
S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (4th ed., pp. 392–407). New York,
NY: Wiley.
Brown, S. D., & Ryan Krane, N. E. (2000). Four (or five) sessions and a cloud of dust: Old assumptions and new
observations about career counseling. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.). Handbook of counseling psy-
chology (3rd ed., pp. 740–766). New York, NY: Wiley.
Browne, M. W., Cudeck, R., Tateneni, K., & Mels, G. (2008). CEFA: A comprehensive Exploratory factor
analysis, Version 3.02 [Computer software and manual]. Retrieved from http://faculty.psy.ohio-state.edu/
browne/
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating cou-
ples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644–663.
Cook, K. W., Vance, C. A., & Spector, P. E. (2000). The relation of candidate personality with selection inter-
view outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 30, 867–885.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Crites, J. O. (1969). Vocational psychology: The study of vocational behavior and its development. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.

19

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CO HEALTH SCIENCE CTR on October 13, 2014
20 Journal of Career Assessment 20(1)

Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory
factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299.
Gati, I., Krausz, M., & Osipow, S. H. (1996). A taxonomy of difficulties in career decision-making. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 43, 510–526.
Gati, I., Osipow, S. H., Krausz, M., & Saka, N. (2000). Validity of the Career Decision-Making Difficulty Ques-
tionnaire: Counselee versus career counselor perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 99–113.
Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., Senecal, C., Larose, S., & Deschenes, A. (2006). Distinguishing developmental from
chronic indecision: Self-efficacy, autonomy, and social support. Journal of Career Assessment, 14,
235–251.
Guay, F., Senecal, C., Gauthier, L., & Fernet, C. (2003). Predicting career indecision: A self-determination the-
ory perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 77–97.
Hoffman, J. (1984). Psychological separation of late adolescents from their parents. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 31, 170–178.
Holland, J. L., & Holland, J. E. (1977). Vocational indecision: More evidence and speculation. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology, 24, 404–414.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rational and technique for estimating the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychome-
trika, 30, 179–185.
Iyengar, S. S., Wells, R. E., & Schwartz, B. (2006). Doing better but feeling worse: Looking for the ‘‘best’’ job
undermines satisfaction. Psychological Science, 17, 143–150.
Kaplan, S., Bradley, J. C., Luchman, J. N., & Haynes, D. (2009). On the role of positive and negative affectivity
in job performance: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 162–176.
Larson, L. M., Heppner, P. P., Ham, T., & Dugan, K. (1988). Investigating multiple subtypes of career indeci-
sion through cluster analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 439–446.
Ma, P. W., & Yeh, C. J. (2005). Factors influencing the career decision status of Chinese American youths. The
Career Development Quarterly, 53, 337–347.
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psycholo-
gical Methods, 4, 84–89.
Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity development in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent
psychology (pp. 159–187). New York, NY: Wiley.
Mau, W. J. (2004). Cultural dimensions of career decision-making difficulties. The Career Development
Quarterly, 53, 67–77.
Miller, M. J., & Brown, S. D. (2005). Counseling for career choice: Implications for improving interventions
and working with diverse populations. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and coun-
seling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 441–465). New York, NY: Wiley.
Nemanick, R. C., Jr., & Munz, D. C. (1997). Extraversion and neuroticism, trait mood and state affect: A hier-
archical relationship? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 1079–1092.
O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel anal-
ysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 32, 396–402.
Peterson, G. W., Sampson, J. P., Jr., Lenz, J. G., & Reardon, R. C. (2002). A cognitive information approach
career problem solving and decision making. In D. Brown & Associates (Eds.), Career choice and devel-
opment (4th ed., pp. 312–369). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Phillips, S. D. (1992). Career counseling: Choice and implementation. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.),
Handbook of counseling psychology (2nd ed., pp. 513–547). New York, NY: Wiley.
Rounds, J. B., & Tinsley, H. E. A. (1984). Diagnosis and treatment of vocational problems. In S. D. Brown &
R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 137–177). New York, NY: Wiley.
Saka, N., Gati, I., & Kelly, K. R. (2008). Emotional and personality-related aspects of career decision-making
difficulties. Journal of Career Assessment, 16, 403–424.
Salmone, P. R. (1982). Difficult cases in career counseling: II. The indecisive client. Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 60, 496–499.

20

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CO HEALTH SCIENCE CTR on October 13, 2014
Brown et al. 21

Savickas, M. L. (1989). Annual review: Practice and research in career counseling and development, 1988.
Career Development Quarterly, 38, 100–134.
Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Montersso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Maximizing versus
satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1178–1197.
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 59, 99–118.
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129–138.
Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man, social and rational: Mathematical essays on rational human behavior.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Inter-
personal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constrains Scale, Quantitative Work Overload Inventory,
and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356–367.
Tellegen, A. (1985). Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety, with an
emphasis on self-report. In T. A. Hussain & J. D. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety and the anxiety disorders
(pp. 681–706). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tyler, L. E. (1969). The work of the counselor (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Wanberg, C. R., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1992). A typology of career decision status: Validity of the vocational
decision status model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 71–80.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1985). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional
states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465–490.
Watson, D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Health complaints, stress, and distress: Exploring the central role of
negative affectivity. Psychological Review, 96, 234–254.
Watson, D., Weise, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two general activation systems of affect: Struc-
tural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 76, 820–838.
Whiston, S. C., Brecheisen, B. K., & Stephens, J. (2003). Does treatment modality affect career counseling
effectiveness? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 390–410.
Whiston, S. C., & Keller, B. K. (2004). The influence of the family of origin on career development: A review
and analysis. The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 493–568.
Whiston, S. C., & Rahardja, D. (2008). Vocational counseling process and outcome. In S. D. Brown &
R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (4th ed., pp. 444–461). New York, NY: Wiley.
Williamson, E. G. (1965). Vocational counseling: Some historical, philosophical, and theoretical perspectives.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

21

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CO HEALTH SCIENCE CTR on October 13, 2014