Social Cognitive Career Theory in a Diverse World: Closing Thoughts

Transcription

1 Closing Thoughts Social Cognitive Career Theory in a Diverse World: Closing Thoughts Journal of Career Assessment 2017, Vol. 25(1) ª The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalspermissions.nav DOI: / journals.sagepub.com/home/jca Steven D. Brown 1 and Robert W. Lent 2 Abstract The purposes of this special issue were (a) to examine social cognitive career theory s (SCCT) relevance to the career development of a diverse range of persons and contexts and (b) to encourage researchers to extend the theory to new cultures, social justice themes, and populations that remain underserved or understudied by vocational psychology. We believe that the range of populations and issues addressed in this special issue illustrate well SCCT s current scope of applicability. In this article, we offer some final thoughts intended to further strengthen SCCT s research base. We first comment on each of the articles, highlighting their implications for future research. We conclude by emphasizing a few larger issues that emerged for us across the set of articles and that point to additional directions for advancing research on SCCT within a diverse world. Keywords social cognitive career theory, social class, multigroup modeling, outcome research, diversity After reading and pondering the many fine contributions in this special issue, we are inspired by the quality and breadth of research that the authors have presented research that extends the theory s reach to a diverse range of persons and that addresses important questions with clear social justice implications. The purposes of this wrap-up article are to highlight some of the findings and suggestions provided in each article and then to note several themes that were suggested across multiple articles that might further advance social cognitive career theory s (SCCT) theoretical, research, and practical yield in a diverse world. The latter include needs to (a) engage in more multigroup model testing to address questions of model fit across cultures, genders, communities, regions, and countries; (b) further cumulate knowledge about SCCT s fit via meta-analytic investigations; and (c) include SCCT variables as possible explanatory mechanisms in outcome research on SCCT-based interventions. 1 School of Education, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA 2 University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA Corresponding Author: Steven D. Brown, School of Education, Loyola University Chicago, 820 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611, USA. sbrown@luc.edu

2 174 Journal of Career Assessment 25(1) Highlights Review Articles The four major review articles generated some intriguing possibilities. Flores, Navarro, and Ali s (2017) review of social class research, for example, suggested that it is important to articulate more clearly how social class operates within the broader society and within SCCT in particular. They also suggested that if social class is conceptualized as a contextual rather than person input variable, a macrosystemic perspective becomes relevant and offers a number of interesting hypotheses for understanding the career development of people at different levels of economic security. For example, Flores et al. (2017) suggest that such variables as perceived classicism (e.g., encounters with classism), family income and community wealth disparities, and instructional methods used in resource-poor and resource-rich schools deserve attention as background contextual influences (e.g., perceived classicism) or as moderators of model fit (e.g., family and community wealth disparities). Although the mechanisms of action of these variables as background contextual or moderator variables need further development, they do deserve attention in future SCCT research. Another idea stimulated by this review for us is that the samples chosen to investigate the relation of objective indices of social class to SCCT variables were often not ideal from a measurement perspective and, as a result, likely yielded results that underestimated the magnitude of relationships between social class and SCCT variables. There are a variety of factors that can affect the accuracy of parameter estimates, including sample size, sampling and measurement errors, and the nature of the samples from which data were obtained. Although investigators of the studies reviewed by Flores et al. (2017) seemed to be aware of the effects of sample size and measurement error on obtained results, they seemed often less careful about ensuring that their samples were appropriate for addressing the questions under investigation. Sample appropriateness is based not only on having various important demographic characteristics represented in the sample but also on whether the scores obtained in the sample are representative of the scores in the population to which one wishes to generalize. The latter, known as range restriction (or enhancement), will result in study parameter estimates that underestimate (range restriction) or overestimate (range enhancement) population parameters. As Flores et al. (2017) pointed out, 63% of the studies that they reviewed on the relationships between social class and SCCT variables used low-income samples despite the fact that the studies sought to estimate the relationships of social class and SCCT variables. Adequate tests of the relationship between social class (which can range from low to high in the population) and SCCT variables require that the full range of social classes be included. Otherwise, bivariate and multivariate correlations will underestimate the population relationships due to range restriction. Flores et al. (2017) concluded, on the basis of this research, that when significant relations were found between social class and SCCT-related variables, those relations were generally small with a few notable exceptions... (p. 8). The fact that most relationships drawn from social class restricted samples were small did not surprise us but did lead us to read the notable exceptions. Two of the exceptions (Mau & Bikos, 2000; Mello, 2009) employed a large national, longitudinal data base that was stratified to ensure that all social classes were included. Results of these two studies contradict conclusions that the relationship between social class- and SCCT-related outcomes are small. Mau and Bikos (2000) reported a standardized b weight of.64 between social class and educational aspirations among high school seniors obtained from a multiple regression that included 12 other predictors (e.g., school size and setting, high school academic performance, parental expectations, and race). Mello (2009) found that the developmental trajectory of educational and occupational expectations was quite stable from age across all levels of social class. Equally important, Mello reported a standardized b weight of.56 between age 14 social class and educational and occupational expectations, suggesting that respondents social class backgrounds at 14 may bear a substantial relation to their concurrent levels of educational and occupational aspirations and that the implications of social class may be long lasting.

3 Brown and Lent 175 These findings suggest to us that rather than dismissing objective indicators of social class as yielding relatively small and unimportant findings (e.g., Liu & Ali, 2008), future research should focus on understanding the mechanisms of social class influence, so that preventive interventions and policy efforts can be developed. The macro- and microsystemic variables suggested in the Flores et al. (2017) review offer valuable possibilities, but samples must be selected to avoid substantial range restriction on scores on these measures as well. Otherwise, we may underestimate (and underappreciate) the influence of these variables on the educational and career lives of the underresourced and marginalized. Fouad and Santana s (2017) review offered interesting possibilities for STEM-relevant interventions for women and people of color, such as those designed to promote early (during the middle and early high school years) success in math and science classrooms and retention of women and people of color in STEM majors and careers. However, they also highlighted gaps in our current knowledge base that would facilitate the development of successful interventions. Among these are understanding: (a) the types of instructor and peer attitudes that foster rather than hinder the math and science success of girls and youth of color, (b) which types of supports (e.g., professor, financial aid, and mentors) are most related to STEM major retention, and (c) the timing of interventions to maximize their impacts. Finally, Fouad and Santana (2017) urged researchers to begin studying the influence of identity intersectionality (e.g., gender, ethnicity, and social class) on STEM entry and retention. Thompson, Dahling, Chin, and Malloy (2017) suggested that the SCCT career self-management model (CSM; Lent & Brown, 2013) offers promise for organizing and making sense of the literature on job loss and reemployment. They then reviewed extant research on job loss and reemployment using the CSM model as an organizing framework and found that the model may offer value in understanding the distal antecedents, cognitive person factors, personality variables, and more proximal contextual influences that foster engagement in the adaptive career behaviors that are important in dealing with job loss and recovery. However, they also highlighted gaps in the literature and in the CSM model that need future research attention. For example, much of the job loss literature has focused on work as a personal identity, how the loss of work affects this identity, and the emotional and psychological consequences of identity loss. Identity is not explicitly included in the CSM model, and Thompson et al. (2017) suggest that the model be expanded to include work identity, unemployment identity, and other forms of identity. Thompson et al. (2017) urged researchers to test the CSM model with groups of workers who traditionally struggle with unemployment (e.g., the disabled and members of stigmatized groups) as well as those undergoing major life transitions (e.g., military veterans, immigrants, refugees, and individuals transitioning out of prison). They also suggested that more attention needs to be given to the lives of workers partners, dependents, and family members who represent the hidden victims of unemployment. While we think that these represent excellent suggestions for future research, such research will necessarily involve identifying explicitly the types of adaptive career behaviors associated with job loss recovery or transition success. For example, although job finding behaviors are obviously adaptive career behaviors for the unemployed, are there other adaptive behaviors (e.g., support seeking and emotional regulation) associated with job loss recovery and transition success that might be studied from a CSM perspective? Sheu and Bordon s (2017) review of SCCT research in international contexts also pointed out some important directions for further theory development and research. They noted that most of the international research focused on the interest, choice, and satisfaction models (Lent & Brown, 2006, 2008; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994) and on SCCT s core social cognitive constructs (i.e., self-efficacy, outcome expectations, interests, choice goals, goal progress, and contextual supports and barriers). However, they also noted that only limited attention has been given to person input variables (e.g., personality traits and internal locus of control), cultural influences (e.g., individualism and collectivism), and more distal contextual factors (e.g., opportunity structure) in international tests of the SCCT model, and they suggested how these variables might be incorporated in future research. Sheu and Bordon (2017) also discussed sampling and methodological issues that need to be addressed in international research on SCCT. In particular, they suggested that research needs to

4 176 Journal of Career Assessment 25(1) be extended to currently unstudied countries (i.e., those in South America, Central America, and Africa) and that relevant contextual and cultural factors need to be included to improve SCCT s explanatory power, utility, and relevance. They also advocated for more longitudinal research in order to shed additional light on the temporal ordering of SCCT variables. Finally, Sheu and Bordon (2017) advocated for more direct cross-national (e.g., China vs. the United States) and cross-regional (e.g., Western vs. Eastern Europe) comparisons via multigroup structural equation modeling and measurement invariance research as the most direct ways of testing how well the SCCT models fit internationally. This method (vs. conducting individual studies within single countries or regions) will better allow us to identify which parts of the SCCT models are universally applicable and which parts may be more specific to particular regions, countries, or cultures. Research Studies The seven original studies in this special issue addressed important career and educational concerns of a diverse sample of participants, including African American college students (Dickinson, Abrams, & Tokar, 2017), first generation college students majoring in engineering (Garriott, Flores, & Navarro, 2017), LGBT workers (Tatum, Formica, & Brown, 2017), emerging adults (Roche, Daskalova, and Brown, 2017), Spanish (Lent et al., 2017) and Chinese college students (Sheu, Liu, & Li, 2017), and career help-seeking adults in Belgium (Verbruggen, Dries, & Van Laer, 2017). Further, tests of most of the SCCT models were well represented in these studies, including two empirical tests of SCCT s recent model of CSM (Lent & Brown, 2013). Dickinson et al. (2017) tested the SCCT interest and choice models in a sample of African American college students. Their results suggested that the relation of self-efficacy to interests was largely indirect via outcome expectations and that outcome expectations and interests mediated the relation of self-efficacy to choice goals. Although Dickinson et al. (2017) noted that these results were not consistent with certain other studies on the SCCT interest and choice model, they do not appear to be entirely inconsistent with the meta-analytic findings of Sheu et al. (2010). The latter reported that the relation of self-efficacy to interests is partly mediated by outcome expectations, which, along with interests, also mediate part of the relation of self-efficacy to choice goals. Although the relative size of the direct and indirect effects varied somewhat by Holland theme, this observation underscores the value of comparing particular findings to those of meta-analyses that accumulate effect sizes across many individual studies and, thereby, are likely to represent reasonably stable benchmarks. Garriott et al. (2017) sought to explore the relationships of parental support and learning experiences to core SCCT variables in predicting engineering major persistence in a sample of first generation college students. They found that, while certain learning experiences did predict self-efficacy or outcome expectations, parental support did not create an indirect pathway to these core SCCT variables via the learning experiences. Although these results might have been influenced by the fact that a large percentage of the sample was in the final years of their engineering major (i.e., they had already persisted), Garriott et al. (2017) suggested that there are a variety of forms of parental support and that future research should use multidimensional measures of parent support in an attempt to identify whether certain types of support may be more strongly related than other types to first generation college students persistence intentions. There is evidence, for example, linking different types of parent behavior to educational performance and aspirations, including parent expectations, parent involvement, and the ability of parents to link doing well in school to future life success (see Brown & Lent, 2016). These types of parent behaviors might also be fruitfully studied within the SCCT models. Tatum et al. (2017) used the SCCT CSM model to predict workplace sexual identity disclosure among a sample of LGBT workers and found that the model fits the data well. They also found that the relationship between working in a sexual minority supportive workplace climate and sexual identity disclosure was partially mediated by sexual identity disclosure self-efficacy beliefs and

5 Brown and Lent 177 outcome expectations, thereby providing a possible theoretical explanation for the link between workplace climate and disclosure that has been frequently noted in the literature (e.g., Velez & Moradi, 2012). Tatum et al. (2017) also suggested that the negative link found in the study between concealment motivation and workplace climate may suggest a path, whereby concealment motivation may be reduced via a sexual minority supportive workplace climate and the types of selfefficacy beliefs and outcome expectations that may be fostered by such a climate. Roche et al. (2017) tested whether the CSM model could predict multiple role balance intentions among emerging adults and explored how gender and conscientiousness might relate to intentions when incorporated as person background variables in the CSM. Their results suggested that the model fit the data, but the relationship between gender and intentions was direct rather than being mediated by selfefficacy beliefs and outcome expectations. The relation of conscientiousness to intentions was, however, fully mediated by self-efficacy beliefs. Two other recent studies testing the CSM model have incorporated conscientiousness as a person input (Lent, Ezeofor, Morrison, Penn, & Ireland, 2016; Lim, Lent, & Penn, 2016); they both also found that the relationship between conscientiousness and intentions was fully mediated by the core SCCT variables. These replicated results not only provide a possible explanation for the link between conscientiousness and intentions but also suggest that low-trait conscientiousness may be a risk factor for less than successful efforts at career exploration and decision-making (Lent et al., 2016), job searching (Lim et al., 2016), and multiple role management (Roche et al., 2017). Lent et al. conducted a cross-sectional study with Spanish college students to test the SCCT satisfaction model. Although the model fit the data well, Lent et al. (2017) noted some differences between the findings of this study and other studies (e.g., Lent, Taveira, & Lobo, 2012) that had used longitudinal designs. Most notably, the longitudinal studies suggested that the link between social cognitive and affective variables may be reciprocal rather than only unidirectional as was found in the current study (i.e., from positive affect to support and self-efficacy). Lent et al., therefore, advocated for more longitudinal tests of the model to better understand the temporal links among the SCCT variables. As did Sheu and Bordon (2017) in their review of international SCCT research, Lent et al. also advocated for measurement invariance investigations to insure that measures of SCCT variables represent the same core constructs in different countries. Sheu et al. (2017) added personality (extraversion and emotional stability) and cultural (independent and interdependent self-construals) variables to the SCCT satisfaction model to predict academic (academic satisfaction and stress) and overall well-being (life satisfaction) outcomes among college students residing in two Chinese cities. Results revealed that the link between self-construals and academic satisfaction and stress were partially mediated via the academic support, academic self-efficacy, and goal progress pathways and that academic well-being predicted overall well-being. The results largely supported the SCCT satisfaction model with the exception that outcome expectations did not predict goal progress. Sheu et al. (2017) noted that the support for the outcome expectation to goal progress path has been mixed in research on the satisfaction model. The mixed findings on the link between outcome expectations and goal progress suggest at least three possibilities. First, outcome expectations may, in fact, be unrelated to goal progress (or at least a superfluous predictor). Second, it may be that outcome expectations measures used in research thus far do not adequately operationalize outcome expectations as defined by the SCCT satisfaction model. Third, findings may not be as mixed as they first appear or as they appear to be when we rely solely on the results of statistical significance testing in individual studies. For example, the hypothesized link between outcome expectations and interests and choice goals seemed to be mixed in tests of the interest and choice models until a meta-analysis of research on these models revealed outcome expectations to be substantially related to interests and choice goals (Sheu et al., 2010). In fact, outcome expectations seemed to be a primary conduit through which self-efficacy beliefs relate to interests and choices. Thus, it may be premature to conclude that outcome expectations are superfluous to the satisfaction model or to simply omit them from all model tests because of the

6 178 Journal of Career Assessment 25(1) mixed findings of individual studies. Rather, a meta-analytic investigation would seem to be a logical next step in the evolution of research on the SCCT satisfaction model. Sheu et al. (2017) also tested for the measurement and structural equivalence of the satisfaction model across gender and geographic locations, finding full measurement and structural equivalence between men and women. However, although full measurement equivalence was found by geographic region, structural equivalence was less than adequate. Two paths were not equivalent the path from extraversion to academic support was only significant among students from Chongqing, while the paths from interdependent self-construal to academic outcome expectations reversed in sign for students living in the two locations (negative for Chongqing students and positive for Shanghai students). While explanations for the path differences were not immediately obvious (perhaps due to socioeconomic status differences in the two locations), this study provides an excellent example of the type of research that has been advocated by many authors in this special issue (e.g., Thompson et al., 2017; Lent et al., 2017; Sheu & Bordon, 2017). Verbruggen et al. (2017) provided intriguing findings on the importance of goal progress in career counseling (a core variable in the SCCT satisfaction model) to clients career and life satisfaction. They found that progress on the goals that clients had for counseling was related to their postcounseling career satisfaction and life satisfaction (via career satisfaction). It is also noteworthy that they found no relation between goal progress and career satisfaction for goals that clients did not initially identify as personally relevant. Verbruggen et al. (2017) suggested that individualized outcomes based on clients initial goals and subsequent goal progress represent important outcome measures in career intervention research. The results also suggested to us that the SCCT satisfaction model might provide a template for the development of career interventions since client goal progress may be a central pathway by which clients achieve satisfaction in their subsequent careers. Should the SCCT satisfaction model be translated into a counseling intervention, outcome research could measure key SCCT constructs (e.g., goalrelated self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, and support) as potential explanatory mechanisms for change. Such research could, for example, test whether the relation between counseling and goal progress is mediated by these core variables and also examine the linkage of goal progress to subsequent career and life satisfaction. Also, the SCCT satisfaction model hypothesizes that the relationship between career and life satisfaction may by moderated by work role salience (i.e., that the relationship will be stronger when the work role is more vs. less salient). This hypothesis deserves testing as well. Summary and Future Directions We, as coeditors, have learned a great deal from reading the articles in this special issue and are excited about the directions they suggest for future research on SCCT. We will conclude by summarizing what we see as several promising directions for future research on SCCT in a diverse world. First, knowledge about the fit of the theory across cultures, genders, ethnicities, regions, and countries may be advanced by more measurement and structural equivalence studies. Authors of the articles in this special issue mentioned a number of possibilities. For example, both Lent et al. (2017) and Sheu and Bordon (2017) suggested cross-national and cross-regional comparisons. Sheu et al. (2017) illustrated the methodology by comparing the measurement and structural equivalence of the satisfaction model by gender and geographic region in China. Thompson et al. (2017) asked how well the CSM model might fit across such understudied groups as persons with and without disabilities, members of stigmatized groups versus members of nonstigmatized groups, military versus civilian personnel, and immigrants versus nonimmigrants. Flores et al. (2017) urged consideration of social class as a macrosystemic contextual affordance and suggested some interesting hypotheses that may be particularly appropriate for multigroup structural equation modeling studies. Some of these include questions of model fit across underresourced and well-resourced schools and on the basis of community wealth. Such research, as noted by Sheu and Bordon (2017), could help to reveal which SCCT variables and

7 Brown and Lent 179 paths may be universal and which may be culturally specific, particularlywhencomparedtostudies that are conducted within one culture, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic class, region, or nation. Second, authors of the reviews often had to rely on vote counting (i.e., tabulate the number of significant and nonsignificant results) to draw conclusions from their literatures. There has, to date, been one meta-analysis of the interest and choice model that yielded results that might not have been evident by attending solely to levels of statistical significance obtained in individual studies, namely, the importance of outcome expectations as a mediator of the relation of self-efficacy to interests and choices (Sheu et al., 2010). As we noted earlier, research on the SCCT satisfaction model might be ripe for meta-analytic investigation as well. Other meta-analytic possibilities include investigating the fit of relevant models within race or social class or as a predictor of STEM entry. Brown, Lent, Telander, and Tramayne (2011) and Brown et al. (2008) as well as Sheu et al. (2010) illustrate how model tests can be conducted meta-analytically using bivariate correlations among variables. Third, as we suggested above, future outcome research on SCCT-derived interventions could profitably test whether key SCCT variables function as mediators of counseling outcome. For example, Verbruggen et al. (2017) showed that progress on personally relevant goals was associated with postcounseling career and life satisfaction. The SCCT satisfaction model suggests that goal progress is facilitated by goal-related self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations as well as by goal-related supports. Logical next questions, then, are whether these variables mediate the relationships between counseling and goal progress and whether goal progress offers a key path to satisfaction outcomes. Fouad and Santana (2017) suggested that the SCCT choice model could be used to develop interventions to promote STEM choices of women and people of color. In addition to testing the effects of such interventions on choice outcomes, it would be important to test whether key variables in the SCCT choice model explain the effects of SCCT-derived career interventions on STEM major choice. There are several other suggestions made by authors in this special issue that deserve attention in future research on SCCT models, including needs for more longitudinal tests of all SCCT models (Sheu and Bordon, 2017; Lent et al., 2017) and for treating support as a multivariate construct (Garriott et al., 2017). Longitudinal tests are necessary to explore the temporal links among SCCT variables. We made some suggestions about aspects of parent support that have shown promise as predictors of educational aspirations, expectations, and achievement. Embedding these in future tests of SCCT models might allow us to better understand how these key parent-related behaviors influence adolescent aspirations, expectations, and achievement, and it might also help to unpack the contextual support construct as it has been studied thus far in SCCT research. We would like to thank Bruce Walsh once again for inviting us to edit this special issue and we especially want to express our gratitude to the authors for their excellent contributions. We hope that this special issue will serve as a stimulus for new research that will further extend the theoretical and practical yield of SCCT across diverse individuals, groups, communities, and societies. 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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. References Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (2016). Vocational psychology: Agency, equity, and well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, Brown, S. D., Lent, R. W., Telander, K., & Tramayne, S. (2011). Social cognitive career theory, conscientiousness, and work performance: A meta-analytic path analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79,

8 180 Journal of Career Assessment 25(1) Brown, S. D., Tramayne, S., Hoxha, D., Telander, K., Fan, X., & Lent, R. W. (2008). Social cognitive predictors of college students academic performance and persistence: A meta-analytic path analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, Dickinson, J., Abrams, M. D., & Tokar, D. M. (2017). An examination of the applicability of Social Cognitive Career Theory for African American college students. Journal of Career Assessment, 27, Flores, L. Y., Navarro, R. L., & Ali, S. R. (2017). The state of SCCT research in relation to social class: Future directions. Journal of Career Assessment, 27, Fouad, N. A., & Santana, M. C. (2017). SCCT and underrepresented populations in STEM fields: Moving the needle. Journal of Career Assessment, 27, Garriott, P. O., Navarro, R. L., & Flores, L. Y. (2017). First-generation college students persistence in engineering majors. Journal of Career Assessment, 27, Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2006). Integrating person and situation perspectives on work satisfaction: A social-cognitive view. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2008). Social cognitive career theory and subjective well-being in the context of work. Journal of Career Assessment, 16, Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2013). Social cognitive model of career self-management: Toward a unifying view of adaptive career behavior across the life span. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance [Monograph]. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, Lent, R. W., Ezeofor, I., Morrison, M. A., Penn, L. T., & Ireland, G. W. (2016). Applying the social cognitive model of career self-management to career exploration and decision-making. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 93, Lent, R. W., Taveira, M. C., & Lobo, C. (2012). Two tests of the social cognitive model of well-being in Portuguese college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, Lent, R. W., Taveira, M., Figuera, P., Dorio, I., Faria, S., & Gonçalves, A. M. (2017). Test of the social cognitive model of well-being in Spanish college students. Journal of Career Assessment, 27, Lim, R. H., Lent, R. W., & Penn, L. T. (2016). Prediction of job search intentions and behaviors: Testing the social cognitive model of career self-management. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63, Liu, W. M., & Ali, S. R. (2008). Social class and classicism: Understanding the psychological impact of poverty and inequality. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (4th ed., pp ). New York, NY: Wiley. Mau, W. C., & Bikos, L. H. (2000). Educational and vocational aspirations of minority and female students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78, Mello, Z. R. (2009). Racial/ethnic group and socioeconomic status variation in educational and occupational expectations from adolescence to adulthood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 20, Roche, M. K., Daskalova, P., & Brown, S. D. (2017). Anticipated multiple role management in emerging adults: A test of the social cognitive career self-management model. Journal of Career Assessment, 27, Sheu, H. B., Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Miller, M. J., Hennessy, K. D., & Duffy, R. D. (2010). Testing the choice model of social cognitive career theory across Holland themes: A meta-analytic path analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, Sheu, H., & Bordon, J. J. (2017). SCCT research in the international context: Empirical evidence, future directions, and practical implications. Journal of Career Assessment, 27, Sheu, H., Liu, Y., & Li, Y. (2017). Well-being of college students in China: Testing a modified social cognitive model. Journal of Career Assessment, 27, Tatum, A. K., Formica, L. J., & Brown, S. D. (2017). Testing a social cognitive model of workplace sexual identity management. Journal of Career Assessment, 27, Thompson, M. N., Dahling, J. J., Chin, M. Y., & Melloy, R. C. (2017). Integrating job loss, unemployment, and reemployment with Social Cognitive Career Theory. Journal of Career Assessment, 27, Velez, B. L., & Moradi, B. (2012). Workplace support, discrimination, and person-organization fit: Tests of the theory of work adjustment with LGB individuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, Verbruggen, M., Dries, N., & Van Laer, K. (2017). Challenging the uniformity myth in career counseling outcome studies: Examining the role of clients initial career counseling goals. Journal of Career Assessment, 27,