The Experts below are selected from a list of 19293 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Steven D. Brown - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
social cognitive career theory at 25 empirical status of the Interest choice and performance models
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2019Co-Authors: Robert W. Lent, Steven D. BrownAbstract:Abstract Social cognitive career theory (SCCT) consists of five interrelated models. Its original models focus on the determinants of educational and Occupational Interest, choice, and performance (including persistence) (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994). A fourth model is aimed at satisfaction and other aspects of well-being in academic and career-related settings (Lent & Brown, 2006a, 2008), and the fifth model highlights processes whereby people manage common developmental tasks and uncommon challenges across the career lifespan (Lent & Brown, 2013). Each of the models seeks to integrate relevant streams of inquiry, with the larger goal of producing a unifying perspective on educational and career behavior. On the occasion of the 25th anniversary of SCCT's introduction, we consider the empirical status of the original three models as well as inquiry on the sources of self-efficacy and outcome expectations, which undergird the three models. Drawing primarily on meta-analytic findings, we examine the tenability of each of the models, observe the roles of particular social cognitive variables within and across model tests, note moderators of model relationships and anomalous findings, point to hypotheses that have been understudied, and suggest additional directions for future inquiry.
-
social cognitive model of career self management toward a unifying view of adaptive career behavior across the life span
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 2013Co-Authors: Robert W. Lent, Steven D. BrownAbstract:: Social cognitive career theory (SCCT) currently consists of 4 overlapping, segmental models aimed at understanding educational and Occupational Interest development, choice-making, performance and persistence, and satisfaction/well-being. To this point, the theory has emphasized content aspects of career behavior, for instance, prediction of the types of activities, school subjects, or career fields that form the basis for people's educational/vocational Interests and choice paths. However, SCCT may also lend itself to study of many process aspects of career behavior, including such issues as how people manage normative tasks and cope with the myriad challenges involved in career preparation, entry, adjustment, and change, regardless of the specific educational and Occupational fields they inhabit. Such a process focus can augment and considerably expand the range of the dependent variables for which SCCT was initially designed. Building on SCCT's existing models, we present a social cognitive model of career self-management and offer examples of the adaptive, process behaviors to which it can be applied (e.g., career decision making/exploration, job searching, career advancement, negotiation of work transitions and multiple roles).
-
Applying Social Cognitive Theory to Career Counseling: An Introduction
Career Development Quarterly, 1996Co-Authors: Robert W. Lent, Steven D. BrownAbstract:This special section of The Career Development Quarterly presents articles that extend social cognitive theory to the practice of career counseling. Readers of the Quarterly are likely to be familiar with the construct of self-efficacy, which has been the most visible aspect of social cognitive theory in the career literature. Developed by Albert Bandura (1986), social cognitive theory is a versatile model of psychosocial functioning that highlights the human capacity for self-regulation. In addition to career development, the general theory has been extended to many domains of behavior such as educational achievement, affective reactions, organizational management, and health maintenance. An earlier version of Bandura's theory, termed social learning theory, inspired John Krumboltz's influential theory of career decision making (Mitchell & Krumboltz, 1990). Efforts to apply the newer social cognitive theory to career behavior began with Hackett and Betz's (1981) classic article on the role of self-efficacy in women's career development. Hackett and Betz's hypotheses stimulated a wealth of research on career self-efficacy beliefs. In an effort to integrate findings into a coherent framework and to elaborate additional, career-relevant aspects of Bandura's position, Lent, Brown, and Hackett (1994) recently presented a social cognitive theory of educational-Occupational Interest, choice, and performance. To date, the career literature on self-efficacy and other aspects of social cognitive theory has been dominated by research reports and theory-building efforts. There have been few efforts to flesh out the implications for career counseling resulting from inquiry into self-efficacy and related constructs (e.g., Betz, 1992; Hackett & Betz, 1981; Lent & Hackett, 1987). The articles in this special section address this need by considering a range of purposes (developmental and remedial) and of client populations for which career interventions based on social cognitive theory may be appropriate. Lent and Brown (1996) begin the special section with a brief overview of social cognitive career theory, providing a conceptual base for the remaining articles. Hackett and Byars (1996) then describe the theory's implications specifically for African American women, and Chartrand and Rose (1996) illustrate how the theory can be used in the context of developmental and preventive interventions for persons at risk, such as women in a prison rehabilitation program. Like Hackett and Byars, Chartrand and Rose highlight the interplay among cognitive (e.g., self-efficacy) and contextual (e.g., opportunity structure) factors. Next, Brown and Lent ( 1996) present several counseling strategies, derived from social cognitive career theory, aimed at assisting clients who are experiencing career choice dilemmas. Finally, although most of the articles in the special section focus on the career client or other recipients of career services, O'Brien and Heppner ( 1996) consider the other side of the fence, in particular, the self-efficacy of counselors (and counselor trainees) regarding their own ability to administer career interventions. …
Robert W. Lent - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
social cognitive career theory at 25 empirical status of the Interest choice and performance models
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2019Co-Authors: Robert W. Lent, Steven D. BrownAbstract:Abstract Social cognitive career theory (SCCT) consists of five interrelated models. Its original models focus on the determinants of educational and Occupational Interest, choice, and performance (including persistence) (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994). A fourth model is aimed at satisfaction and other aspects of well-being in academic and career-related settings (Lent & Brown, 2006a, 2008), and the fifth model highlights processes whereby people manage common developmental tasks and uncommon challenges across the career lifespan (Lent & Brown, 2013). Each of the models seeks to integrate relevant streams of inquiry, with the larger goal of producing a unifying perspective on educational and career behavior. On the occasion of the 25th anniversary of SCCT's introduction, we consider the empirical status of the original three models as well as inquiry on the sources of self-efficacy and outcome expectations, which undergird the three models. Drawing primarily on meta-analytic findings, we examine the tenability of each of the models, observe the roles of particular social cognitive variables within and across model tests, note moderators of model relationships and anomalous findings, point to hypotheses that have been understudied, and suggest additional directions for future inquiry.
-
social cognitive model of career self management toward a unifying view of adaptive career behavior across the life span
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 2013Co-Authors: Robert W. Lent, Steven D. BrownAbstract:: Social cognitive career theory (SCCT) currently consists of 4 overlapping, segmental models aimed at understanding educational and Occupational Interest development, choice-making, performance and persistence, and satisfaction/well-being. To this point, the theory has emphasized content aspects of career behavior, for instance, prediction of the types of activities, school subjects, or career fields that form the basis for people's educational/vocational Interests and choice paths. However, SCCT may also lend itself to study of many process aspects of career behavior, including such issues as how people manage normative tasks and cope with the myriad challenges involved in career preparation, entry, adjustment, and change, regardless of the specific educational and Occupational fields they inhabit. Such a process focus can augment and considerably expand the range of the dependent variables for which SCCT was initially designed. Building on SCCT's existing models, we present a social cognitive model of career self-management and offer examples of the adaptive, process behaviors to which it can be applied (e.g., career decision making/exploration, job searching, career advancement, negotiation of work transitions and multiple roles).
-
Applying Social Cognitive Theory to Career Counseling: An Introduction
Career Development Quarterly, 1996Co-Authors: Robert W. Lent, Steven D. BrownAbstract:This special section of The Career Development Quarterly presents articles that extend social cognitive theory to the practice of career counseling. Readers of the Quarterly are likely to be familiar with the construct of self-efficacy, which has been the most visible aspect of social cognitive theory in the career literature. Developed by Albert Bandura (1986), social cognitive theory is a versatile model of psychosocial functioning that highlights the human capacity for self-regulation. In addition to career development, the general theory has been extended to many domains of behavior such as educational achievement, affective reactions, organizational management, and health maintenance. An earlier version of Bandura's theory, termed social learning theory, inspired John Krumboltz's influential theory of career decision making (Mitchell & Krumboltz, 1990). Efforts to apply the newer social cognitive theory to career behavior began with Hackett and Betz's (1981) classic article on the role of self-efficacy in women's career development. Hackett and Betz's hypotheses stimulated a wealth of research on career self-efficacy beliefs. In an effort to integrate findings into a coherent framework and to elaborate additional, career-relevant aspects of Bandura's position, Lent, Brown, and Hackett (1994) recently presented a social cognitive theory of educational-Occupational Interest, choice, and performance. To date, the career literature on self-efficacy and other aspects of social cognitive theory has been dominated by research reports and theory-building efforts. There have been few efforts to flesh out the implications for career counseling resulting from inquiry into self-efficacy and related constructs (e.g., Betz, 1992; Hackett & Betz, 1981; Lent & Hackett, 1987). The articles in this special section address this need by considering a range of purposes (developmental and remedial) and of client populations for which career interventions based on social cognitive theory may be appropriate. Lent and Brown (1996) begin the special section with a brief overview of social cognitive career theory, providing a conceptual base for the remaining articles. Hackett and Byars (1996) then describe the theory's implications specifically for African American women, and Chartrand and Rose (1996) illustrate how the theory can be used in the context of developmental and preventive interventions for persons at risk, such as women in a prison rehabilitation program. Like Hackett and Byars, Chartrand and Rose highlight the interplay among cognitive (e.g., self-efficacy) and contextual (e.g., opportunity structure) factors. Next, Brown and Lent ( 1996) present several counseling strategies, derived from social cognitive career theory, aimed at assisting clients who are experiencing career choice dilemmas. Finally, although most of the articles in the special section focus on the career client or other recipients of career services, O'Brien and Heppner ( 1996) consider the other side of the fence, in particular, the self-efficacy of counselors (and counselor trainees) regarding their own ability to administer career interventions. …
Donald G Zytowski - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
ellenore flood s kuder Occupational Interest survey and career search schedule
Career Development Quarterly, 1998Co-Authors: Donald G ZytowskiAbstract:The Kuder Occupational Interest Survey and Career Search Schedule are interpreted for a client (given the pseudonym Ellenore Flood) in the form of a letter addressed to her. Comments on technique, the author's reasoning, and suggestions for further interventions are interpolated throughout. Dear Ellenore: It's not really good practice to do career counseling by mail, but because Drs. Savickas and Spokane have asked to me interpret your Kuder Interest Survey results, I'll undertake it, expecting that you will have an opportunity to explore with them more fully the issues that you are presently facing in the light of what your inventories reveal. My work with Ellenore Flood is guided by principles I have articulated elsewhere (Zytowski, in press) in detail. I would begin by reviewing her reports [see Appendixes A and B] of results: checking indices of validity, forming tentative concepts to convey the essence of her results, comparing them (as in Swanson, 1992) with information from the case materials. I try to use ordinary language in discussing results. People take Interest inventories for many reasons: (a) to sharpen their understanding of their Interest patterns ("I like science best, but art doesn't appeal to me"); (b) to generate occupations for further consideration ("I just got a D in chemistry. I need a new major"); (c) to bolster a tentative career choice ("I'm pretty sure that I want to be a CPA, but I'd like to see what the test says"); (d) to prioritize a number of possible actions ("I could go into sales, management, or self-employment. I'd like to see which fits me best."), as well as some dubious reasons ("My boyfriend took that test. I'd like to see what it says about me.") I often ask my clients which of these reasons (derived from Power, Holland, Daiger, & Takai, 1979) is most nearly theirs. It is part instruction in making career decisions, and part guidance for my interpretation. You don't lack career alternatives: renewing your teaching contract, applying for an overseas teaching job, returning to graduate school, or going back to work for your former employer. There are themes of social service and business reflected in these alternatives. I note that they are more like positions than occupations, and Interest inventories don't really speak in these terms. Nevertheless, your results might be used to confirm that your several possibilities fit your Interests, and possibly prioritize or rank order them. You took the Kuder Occupational Interest Survey (KOIS), among several other inventories. Do you remember what the inventory was like? It asked about your Interests in various activities-not occupations, and your preferences-most-preferred and least-preferred. It gives several levels of results, like a three-stage microscope: Vocational Interest Estimates (VIEs)low power; Occupational and College Major scales (OS and CMSS medium power; and additionally scored from your responses, the Kuder Career Search Survey (KCSS-highest power magnification. I would have liked to ask you to rank-order your Interests in 10 areas, the VIEs, before you filled out the answer sheet, but there wasn't an opportunity to do so. Immediately, the "caution" message in the Dependability section must be confronted. From the counselor's copy of the report on which numerical scores are given, I note that the V-score is 44, just 1 point under the cutoff for a caution message. More noticeable is the array of VIEs compared with women; none in the "high" range; five each in the "average" and "low" ranges. Notice too, how the highest of the VIE scores in the low range is only the 11th percentile. I would characterize this as an "undifferentiated" profile, likely affecting the V-score. Ellenore has many Interests competing for satisfaction, not unlike the problem that she presents. This might raise the topic for her counselor of Ellenore's decision making skills. You can read through your report form (see Appendix A) in numerical order, 1,2,3; the green ink text and then the computer-printed to get the gist of it. …
Alice H Eagly - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content observations of groups roles shape stereotypes
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2014Co-Authors: Anne M Koenig, Alice H EaglyAbstract:In applying social role theory to account for the content of a wide range of stereotypes, this research tests the proposition that observations of groups' roles determine stereotype content (Eagly & Wood, 2012). In a novel test of how stereotypes can develop from observations, preliminary research collected participants' beliefs about the Occupational roles (e.g., lawyer, teacher, fast food worker, chief executive officer, store clerk, manager) in which members of social groups (e.g., Black women, Hispanics, White men, the rich, senior citizens, high school dropouts) are overrepresented relative to their numbers in the general population. These beliefs about groups' typical Occupational roles proved to be generally accurate when evaluated in relation to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Then, correlational studies predicted participants' stereotypes of social groups from the attributes ascribed to group members' typical Occupational roles (Studies 1a, 1b, and 1c), the behaviors associated with those roles (Study 2), and the Occupational Interest profile of the roles (Study 3). As predicted by social role theory, beliefs about the attributes of groups' typical roles were strongly related to group stereotypes on both communion and agency/competence. In addition, an experimental study (Study 4) demonstrated that when social groups were described with changes to their typical social roles in the future, their projected stereotypes were more influenced by these future roles than by their current group stereotypes, thus supporting social role theory's predictions about stereotype change. Discussion considers the implications of these findings for stereotype change and the relation of social role theory to other theories of stereotype content.
Anne M Koenig - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content observations of groups roles shape stereotypes
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2014Co-Authors: Anne M Koenig, Alice H EaglyAbstract:In applying social role theory to account for the content of a wide range of stereotypes, this research tests the proposition that observations of groups' roles determine stereotype content (Eagly & Wood, 2012). In a novel test of how stereotypes can develop from observations, preliminary research collected participants' beliefs about the Occupational roles (e.g., lawyer, teacher, fast food worker, chief executive officer, store clerk, manager) in which members of social groups (e.g., Black women, Hispanics, White men, the rich, senior citizens, high school dropouts) are overrepresented relative to their numbers in the general population. These beliefs about groups' typical Occupational roles proved to be generally accurate when evaluated in relation to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Then, correlational studies predicted participants' stereotypes of social groups from the attributes ascribed to group members' typical Occupational roles (Studies 1a, 1b, and 1c), the behaviors associated with those roles (Study 2), and the Occupational Interest profile of the roles (Study 3). As predicted by social role theory, beliefs about the attributes of groups' typical roles were strongly related to group stereotypes on both communion and agency/competence. In addition, an experimental study (Study 4) demonstrated that when social groups were described with changes to their typical social roles in the future, their projected stereotypes were more influenced by these future roles than by their current group stereotypes, thus supporting social role theory's predictions about stereotype change. Discussion considers the implications of these findings for stereotype change and the relation of social role theory to other theories of stereotype content.
