EXAMINING THE RELATION BETWEEN HOLLAND'S RIASEC MODEL AND THE INTERPERSONAL CIRCLE

Transcription

1 The link information below provides a persistent link to the article you've requested. Persistent link to this record: Following the link below will bring you to the start of the article or citation. Cut and Paste: To place article links in an external web document, simply copy and paste the HTML below, starting with "<a href" To continue, in Internet Explorer, select FILE then SAVE AS from your browser's toolbar above. Be sure to save as a plain text file (.txt) or a 'Web Page, HTML only' file (.html). In FireFox, select FILE then SAVE FILE AS from your browser's toolbar above. In Chrome, select right click (with your mouse) on this page and select SAVE AS Record: 1 Title: Authors: Source: Document Type: Subjects: Abstract: Full Text Word Count: ISSN: Accession Number: Persistent link to this record (Permalink): Cut and Paste: Database: Examining the relation between Holland's RIASEC model and the interpersonal circle. Schneider, Paul L. Ryan, Jennifer M. al, et Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development (American Counseling Association). Oct96, Vol. 29 Issue 3, p p. 2 Diagrams, 2 Charts. Article VOCATIONAL interests -- Testing Assesses the similarity between Holland's RAISEC model and Wiggin's interpersonal model in order to look into the relationship between personality and vocational interests. Methodology; Results; Discussion on the implication of the results of the study direct=true&db=tfh&an= &site=ehost-live <A href=" direct=true&db=tfh&an= &site=ehost-live">examining the relation between Holland's RIASEC model and the interpersonal circle.</a> Professional Development Collection Section: ARTICLES EXAMINING THE RELATION BETWEEN HOLLAND'S RIASEC MODEL AND THE INTERPERSONAL CIRCLE Correlational and multidimensional scaling (MDS) analyses were performed to assess the similarity

2 between Holland's RIASEC model and Wiggins's interpersonal model. The results suggest that the models share one common dimension--affiliation. There has been a long-standing hypothesis that vocational interests and personality are linked (e.g., Hansen, 1984). The basis for the vocational interest-personality link lies in the fact that the major measures used to assess vocational interests are themselves set in personality typologies (Holland, 1985a; Roe, 1957). Although many different elements of personality have been examined, relatively few researchers have examined the relation between Holland's model and interpersonal aspects of personality. Holland (1985a), in describing his model, attributed a large interpersonal component to his typology, emphasizing the importance and influence that the types play in relationships and in environments. In addition, Holland's individual descriptions of the six types all contain several interpersonal components (e.g., Social types are friendly and like working with people). Schneider (1987a) picked up on the interpersonal element in his description of the importance of people in the formation of the workplace environment. Schneider theorized that environment is a function of people and behaviors. In essence, it is the people and their personalities, specifically interpersonal characteristics, that determine how organizations and jobs are structured. People form the workplace environment through their interpersonal behavior. The relation between interpersonal personality and vocational interests was also recognized by Hogan (1983) when he examined the connections between various circumplex models. He proposed that circumplex models seemed to all share a common "deep structure." Looking specifically at Holland's hexagonal model, Hogan (1983) commented as follows on its structure: "The adjectives around the perimeter of Holland's hexagon are in the same order as the adjectives in the other circumplexes" (p. 67). If Holland's model shares a common structure with circular models in personality, then the question is, How similar are the structures of these models? Previous research has concentrated on finding a correlation between personality measures, specifically the Big Five and Holland's hexagonal model. Yet, as Broughton, Trapnell, and Boyes (1991) pointed out, the most consistent finding in the literature is that "interpersonal factors account for a majority of the shared variance between the domains of vocational interests and personality" (p. 309). The strongest correlations that have been found are positive ones between the Enterprising and Social types of Holland's model and Extraversion in the Big Five model (Blake & Sackett, 1993; Bolton, 1985; Costa, McCrae & Holland, 1984; Dillon & Weissman, 1987; Goh & Leong, 1993; Gottfredson, Jones, & Holland, 1993; Hogan, 1986; Peraino & Willerman, 1983), and correspondingly negative correlations between the Realistic and Investigative types, and Extraversion (Blake & Sackett, 1993; Bolton, 1985; Costa et al., 1984; Peraino & Willerman, 1983). Broughton et al. (1991) examined the relation between interpersonal personality and Holland's hexagon model and found that occupations, if coded for their interpersonal content, could provide a measure of interpersonal personality. Broughton et al.'s (1991) results indicated that a relation between occupations and interpersonal measures does exist. It is the nature of this relation and specifically the relation between circular structures that we examined. HOLLAND'S RIASEC MODEL Holland's model consists of six occupational types: Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional (Holland, 1985a). These types form a hexagonal structure that hereafter are referred to as the

3 "RIASEC model." The RIASEC model orders the Holland types into a hexagonal structure that obeys the properties of a circular order model (Rounds, Tracey, & Hubert, 1992; Tracey & Rounds, 1993). The RIASEC model, like other circular models, is defined by two dimensions (Hogan, 1983; Prediger & Vansickle, 1992; Rounds & Tracey, 1993). Like other circular models, the orientation of the two dimensions in the RIASEC model is arbitrary (Rounds & Tracey, 1993). For convenience sake, we chose to base our examination on Prediger's (1982) dimensional orientation of people versus things and data versus ideas. As shown in Figure 1: The people-things dimension divides the circumplex in half with, the social type at the people end, and the realistic type at the things end. The data-ideas dimension equally intersects the conventional and enterprising types on the dam end and the investigative and artistic types at the ideas end. METHOD Participants INTERPERSONAL CIRCLE Interpersonal theory has had a long history of development (e.g., Benjamin, 1974; Freedman, Leary, Ossorio, & Coffey, 1951; Kiesler, 1983; Leary, 1957; Lorr & McNair, 1965; Wiggins, 1979). Interpersonal theory interprets personality in terms of how people interact with other people. Personality types are determined by the combination of two traits, power and affiliation. The measurement of these two elements provides an interpersonal personality type that yields a description of the typical fashion in which the individual interacts with other people. The theory was originally operationalized by Leary (1957) in the form of an interpersonal circle. Over the years, variations of the interpersonal model have appeared, but they continue to remain remarkably consistent with Leary's original proposal. The interpersonal circle provides a way of examining interpersonal variables and explaining how different types relate to each other. The circle consists of two dimensions that measure the traits of power and affiliation. On one end of the power dimension is the interpersonal type Dominant, and on the opposite end is the Submissive type. On one end of the second dimension, affiliation, is the Friendly type and on the opposite end is the Hostile type. The circle is also further divided into individual interpersonal types (see Figure 1). A large body of research has repeatedly demonstrated that interpersonal behavior can be characterized by the expression of these two joint dimensions (e.g., Carson, 1969; Wiggins, 1982; Wiggins & Broughton, 1985; Wiggins, Trapnell, & Phillips, 1988). The particular variation of the interpersonal circle we chose is Wiggins's model, as measured by the Interpersonal Adjective Scale -- Revised (IAS-R; Wiggins et al., 1988). Wiggins's interpersonal model was empirically developed and has demonstrated strong support for the properties of a circular model over varying samples and time (Wiggins et al., 1988). The basis for choosing to investigate an interpersonal measure lies in four suppositions: (a) Schneider's (1987a, 1987b) evidence that people and their behaviors determine the workplace and its elements, (b) Holland's (1985a) attribution of an interpersonal component to his personality types, (c) Hogan's (1983) examination of circular personality models and observations of a common deep structure, and (d) research whose main findings have been correlations of occupational interests with components of the interpersonal circle (Broughton et al., 1991). Following these suppositions, we hypothesized that the structure of Holland's RIASEC model will be similar to and contain elements common with the structure of Wiggins's interpersonal personality circle.

4 Participants were 218 college students at a large midwestern state university. The students sampled consisted of 148 women and 70 men, ranging in age from 18 to 30, with a mean age of 20.0 (SD = 1.54). The majority of students were undergraduates enrolled in basic educational psychology courses. Measures Vocational Preference Inventory (VPI; Holland, 1985b). The VPI measures vocational interests by assessing participants' degree of preference on a true-false scale for each of the 84 presented occupations. These responses are averaged to yield scores on the six general occupational theme scales (personality types): Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional. These scales demonstrate a reasonable level of predictive and construct validity (Holland, 1985b). The VPI was chosen as the measure of Holland's RIASEC structure in this study because Holland's original hexagonal model was based on data collected via the VPI. Although other available measures may provide a better measure of Holland's personality types, the VPI has been shown to provide a reliable and valid RIASEC structure (Rounds & Tracey, 1993). In this study, a modified form of the VPI was used in which each of 84 presented occupational titles was responded to using a 7-point scale ranging from strongly dislike (1) to strongly like (7). This response format was used to maximize variance in participants' responses. Internal consistency estimates as measured by Cronbach's alpha for the six scales of this sample were.89 for Realistic,.92 for Investigative,.91 for Artistic,.86 for Social,.83 for Enterprising, and.91 for Conventional. In addition to the personality scale scores, two dimension scores (people--things and data--ideas) were calculated using Prediger and Vansickle's (1992) formula. The score for people--things is computed by summing the weighted scale scores on the things end of the dimension (R, I, and C) and subtracting those on the people end of the dimension (S, A, and E). A positive score on this dimension reflects an emphasis on people. The score for data--ideas is computed by summing weighted scale scores on the data end (E and C) and subtracting weighted scores on the ideas end (I and A). A positive score on this dimension reflects an emphasis on ideas (Prediger & Vansickle, 1992). The Interpersonal Adjectives Scales-Revised (IAS-R; Wiggins et al., 1988). The IAS-R assesses eight interpersonal types: dominant, arrogant, quarrelsome, introverted, submissive, unassuming, agreeable, and extraverted. Participants are asked to indicate on an 8-point scale whether each of 64 adjectives is an accurate or inaccurate description of themselves. The items were averaged to yield the eight subscale scores. Dimension scores for affiliation and power are also calculated by using a formula based on the eight standardized personality scores generated from the data (Wiggins, 1982). Cross-validation studies have shown this instrument to be generalizable across diverse samples of participants and in various testing contexts (Wiggins, 1979, Wiggins, et al., 1988). Internal consistency estimates (Cronbach's alpha) for each of the eight personality scales in this sample were.86 for Dominance,.90 for Arrogance,.87 for Quarrelsome,.90 for Introverted,.89 for Submissive,.83 for Unassuming,.89 for Agreeable, and.91 for Extraverted. Procedure The IAS-R and the VPI were administered to students in beginning educational psychology courses who volunteered to participate in exchange for research pool credit. The questionnaires were administered to groups of approximately 15 students at a time. The order in which the instruments were presented was randomly varied with each student. Participants were informed that the inventories assessed personal traits

5 and occupational preferences, that anonymity would be preserved, that participation was voluntary, and that they were free to withdraw at any time. On completion of the inventories, participants were debriefed. Analysis The extent to which the RIASEC scores and the IAS-R scores fit a circular order model was examined using a randomization test of hypothesized order relations (Hubert & Arabie, 1987; Rounds et al., 1992) as operationalized by the RANDALL program (Tracey, in press). The analysis involves testing the number of proposed predictions, as outlined in the definition of the circular order model (Rounds, 1995), which are met for the current sample. According to Holland's model, the correlations for the adjacent pairs (RI, IA, AS, SE, EC, and CR) should be greater than the correlation for the alternate pairs (RA, IS, AE, SC, ER, and CI) and the opposite pairs (RS, IE, and AC), and the correlations for alternate pairs should be greater than the correlations for opposite pairs (Rounds et al., 1992). There are 72 order predictions made in the circular arrangement of six types and 288 predictions made in the circular arrangement of eight types. Model fit is measured in terms of the correspondence index (CI), which is the number of confirmed predictions (agreements) minus the number of violated predictions (disagreements) divided by the total number of order predictions. For example, for a correlation matrix in which there are 69 confirmed predictions, two violations, and one tie, the correspondence index is equal to (69-2)/( ) =.93 (Rounds, Tracey, & Hubert, 1992). The correspondence index varies from -1 to 1, with 0 indicating chance agreement or disagreement. To test for similarities between the personality types and dimensions of the two models, correlational analyses were performed. To obtain information on the extent of a shared structure, a nonmetric multidimensional scaling procedure (MDS; Kruskal & Wish, 1978) was performed. MDS is a statistical technique in which proximity data (scale correlations in this case) are analyzed and from which a spatial representation of the similarity among a group of scales is derived. In the MDS representation, scales that are similar to each other will tend to be in close proximity, whereas scales that are not similar will tend to be more distal. Model fit is measured in terms of Kruskal's stress formula, where stress values range from 0 to 1, with 0 equaling a perfect fit. RESULTS The randomization test of hypothesized order relations suggested that the structures derived from this particular sample fit a circular order model. The circular order model for the VPI was significant (p <.02), with 70 of 72 possible predictions being met. The value for the correspondence index was.94 (70 confirmed predictions minus 2 violations, divided by 72 total predictions), indicating a very good fit of the data to the model. For Wiggins's model, 279 of 288 possible predictions were met. The value for the CI was.93 (279 confirmed predictions minus 9 violations, divided by 288 total predictions). The randomization test was significant (p <.001), indicating a very good data fit. Correlations were performed among the eight IAS-R personality scores arid the RIASEC scores to examine the similarity between the models (see Tables 1 & 2). Holland's Social scale, which lies on the people end of the people--things axis, was positively correlated with all three of Wiggins's friendly personality scales (Unassuming, r =.29, p <.01; Agreeable, r =.28, p <.01; Extroverted r =.28, p <.01). The Social scale was also correlated with the affiliation axis (r =.32, p <.01). In addition, the Social personality scale was significantly negatively correlated with all three of Wiggins's hostile personality scales (Arrogant, r = -.14, p <.05; Quarrelsome, r = -.28, p <.01; and Introverted, r = -.29, p <.01). The Enterprising personality type, which by definition is closely related to the Social scale (Holland, 1985b), was positively correlated with one of Wiggins's friendly personality scales (Extroverted, r =.25, p <.01), and negatively correlated with a

6 Hostile scale, (Introverted, r = -.26, p <.01). What is particularly interesting here are the significant negative correlations between the realistic type and The Realistic type, which is on the things end of the people--things axis, was negatively correlated with all three of Wiggins's friendly types and the affiliation dimension (Unassuming, r = -.17, p <.05; Agreeable, r = -.20, p <.01; Extroverted, r = -.19, p <.01; Affiliation, r = -.25, p <.01) and positively correlated with all three hostile types (Arrogant, r =.15, p <.05; Quarrelsome, r =.18, p <.01; Introverted, r =.21, p <.01). Correlations between the people--things axis and fine agreeable types were significant (Unassuming, r =.26, p <.01; Agreeable, r =.29, p <.01; Extroverted, r =.32, p <.01), as well as correlations between the people--things axis and the hostile personality types (Arrogant, r = -.18, p <.01; Quarrelsome, r = -.29, p <.01; Introverted, r = -.33, p <.01). The people--things axis was positively correlated with the affiliation axis (r =.36, p <.01). These correlations suggest that the people--things axis of the RIASEC model has a good amount of overlap with the affiliation axis of the interpersonal circumplex model. There were no similar correlations across measures for the data--ideas dimension. For instance, none of the personality types of the interpersonal scales were correlated with the data-ideas axis. In addition, with the exception of the correlations between the power axis and the Enterprising type (r =.21, p <.01), and the Dominance (r =. 14, p <.05) and Submissiveness (r = -.14, p <.05) types with the Enterprising type, none of Holland's personality types were correlated with the power axis. For the power dimension to characterize the RIASEC circle, it would need to correlate negatively with the Investigative type, which it did not. The MDS solutions were generated for 2, 3, and 4 dimensions. The stress values were.17 for the twodimensional solution,.07 for the three-dimensional solution, and.04 for the four-dimensional solution. The three-dimensional solution was easiest to interpret and seemed to be the most thorough yet parsimonious representation. The graphical representation of the 3-dimensional solution is presented in Figure 2. The plot of Dimensions 1 and 2 (left half of Figure 2) demonstrate the circular structure of the IAS-R scales. Dimension 1 appears to be very similar to the affiliation dimension underlying the interpersonal circumplex. Dimension 2 appears to resemble the power dimension. However, the variation in the Holland scales only occurs along Dimension 1, affiliation. There was no variation along the power dimension, and the circular RIASEC structure was not apparent. Only a unidimensional linear structure with the RIASEC types was apparent. The right depiction in Figure 2 is of Dimensions 1 and 3, and this is where the circular structure of Holland's RIASEC types is manifest. The IAS-R scales demonstrate variance only on Dimension 1. Thus, the IAS-R and RIASEC structures share Dimension 1 (affiliation) but differ on each of the other two dimensions, varying either on Dimension 2 (IAS-R scales varying on power) or on Dimension 3 (RIASEC scales varying on Prediger and Vansickle's, 1992, data-ideas dimension). These results suggest that both structures share an affiliation dimension, but that a power dimension is found for the Wiggins structure only. There was also no interpersonal complement for the data--ideas dimension. DISCUSSION The results from this study demonstrate support for the similarity in structure between the people--things dimension from Holland's RIASEC model and the affiliation dimension from Wiggins's Interpersonal circle. The MDS results Imply that these dimensions have a certain degree of overlap. The second dimensions of each of these models, data-ideas from Holland and power from Wiggins, were not related.

7 the affiliation dimension and the significant positive correlations between the social type and the affiliation dimension. The similarities between these types and dimensions may lend merit to a different interpretation of the people--things dimension. The affiliation dimension is a measure of how people interact with other people. Those who fall on the friendly end of the dimension tend to like interacting with other people. People on the hostility end tend to act in a less friendly or hostile manner toward people. Looking at the correlational evidence it seems that the things end of the RIASEC model might not be a preference for things per se, but rather an avoidance of others or pushing away of others. The data from the MDS analysis illustrate the similarity between these two dimensions. The social type falls directly in line with the friendly-toward-people end of the affiliation dimension, whereas the realistic type lies on the hostility-toward-people end. Taking into account the similarities with the affiliation dimension, it seems likely that the things end of people-things dimension is more of a dislike of working with people than it is a liking of working with things. Goh and Leong (1993), when examining correlates between personality and Holland's RIASEC model, came to a similar conclusion. They postulated that realistic types tend to "move away from people," and that social types tend to "move towards people." Further exploration of this idea is warranted. Our examination of the second dimensions of each model was less conclusive. The second dimension on the RIASEC model, data--ideas, does not measure the same factor as the interpersonal power dimension. Only one RIASEC scale, Enterprising, correlated with the power dimension. This is not surprising when one examines Holland's description of an enterprising type. A common occupation in this type, salesperson, provides an excellent example. An enterprising person is typically friendly and slightly aggressive, or dominant. The literature provides support for the similarity between enterprising and extraversion as well. Extraversion, which contains elements of dominance and friendliness (Kiesler, 1983; Wiggins, 1982; Wiggins & Broughton, 1985) has often been correlated with Holland's enterprising type (e.g., Costa et al., 1984). Closer examination of the individual types that make up the data--ideas dimension shows that on one end, Artistic has been correlated with openness to experience (Gotffredson et al., 1993) and perceptive types (Dillon & Weissman, 1987), and the Investigative type has been negatively correlated with extroversion (Blake & Sackett, 1993), the opposite of introversion. On the opposite end of the dimension it is shown that the Conventional type has been correlated with control (Gottfredson et al., 1993), judging (Dillon & Weissman, 1987) and conscientiousness (Blake & Sackett, 1993), and the Enterprising type with extraversion (e.g., Costa et al., 1984). Although it is not entirely clear, the second dimension on the RIASEC model seems to be combining elements of both control and extraversion at one end and openness to experience and introversion on the opposite end. Further exploration into this relation might provide us with a better understanding of how the data--ideas dimension is related to personality. This study provides evidence for Holland's claim of an interpersonal component in his model. The two measures were both shown to have a true circular structure. When comparing these structures it was found that the RIASEC's people--things dimension seemed to be parallel to the affiliation dimension of the interpersonal circle. In contrast, the second dimension of the RIASEC model, data--ideas, seems to measure some elements not reflected within the interpersonal circle. However, it appears that interpersonal

8 and personality elements do play a part in the data--ideas dimension. Last, the results seem to have some implications for counseling. Previous researchers (Costa et al., 1984; Goh & Leong, 1993; Gottfredson et al., 1993) have noted that the use of personality measures can be helpful in career counseling. Schneider (1987b) illustrated the importance of understanding the person in the workplace. In addition, it has been pointed out (Rounds & Tinsley, 1984; Rounds & Tracey, 1990) that personal counseling and career counseling share many overlapping qualities. Our findings here further illustrate this overlap and seem to support the use of interpersonal theory in conjunction with vocational counseling. TABLE 1. Correlations Among Wiggins's and Holland's Personality Types Legend for Chart: A - Wiggins's Type B - Holland's Types; R C - Holland's Types; I D - Holland's Types; A E - Holland's Types; S F - Holland's Types; E G - Holland's Types; C A B C D E F G (BC) Arrogant.15[a] [a] (DE) Hostile.18[b] [b] [b] (FG) Introverted.21[b] [b] -.26[b].09 (HI) Submissive [a].09 (JK) Unassuming -.17[b] [b] (LM) Agreeable -.20[b] [b] (NO) Extroverted [b].25[b] -.07

9 (PA) Dominant [a].02 Note. R = Realistic; I = Investigative; A = Artistic; S = Social; E = Enterprising; C = Conventional. a p<.05. b p<.01. TABLE 2. Correlations Among Wiggins's and Holland's Personality Types and Proposed Dimensions Legend for Chart: A - Item B - Proposed Dimensions; People/Things C - Proposed Dimensions; Data/Ideas D - Proposed Dimensions; Affiliation E - Proposed Dimensions; Power A B C D E Holland's Types Realistic -.66[b] -.38[b] -.25[b] -.01 Investigative -.44[b] -.73[b] -.14[a].02 Artistic -.20[b] -.78[b] Social.64[b] -.15[a].32[b].09 Enterprising.25[b].41[b].13[a].21[b] Conventional.39[b].48[b] -.14[a] -.02 Wiggins's Type (BC) Arrogant -.18[b] [b].45[b] (DE) Quarrelsome -.29[b] [b].12 (FG) Introverted -.33[b] [b] -.51[b] (HI) Submissive [b] (JK) Unassuming.26[b].07.88[b] -.27[b] (LM) Agreeable.29[b].10.90[b] -.14[a]

10 (NO) Extroverted.32[b].07.73[b].53[b] (PA) Dominant [a].86[b] Proposed Dimensions People/Things [b] -.11 Data/Ideas Affiliation.36[b] Power a p <.05. b p <.01. DIAGRAM: FIGURE 1 Circular Structure for Holland's Personality Types and Wiggins' Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scale DIAGRAM: FIGURE 2 Graphical Representation of MDS Results REFERENCES Benjamin, L. S. (1974). Structural analysis of social behavior. Psychological Review, 81, Blake, R. J., & Sackett, S. A. (1993). Holland's typology and the five-factor model: A rational-empirical analysis. Paper presented at the convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Bolton, B. (1985). Discriminant analysis of Holland's Occupational types using the sixteen personality factor questionnaire. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 27, Broughton, R., Trapnell, P. D., & Boyes, M. C. (1991). Classifying personality types with occupational prototypes. Journal of Research in Personality, 25, Carson, R. C. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago: Aldine. Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Holland, J. L. (1984). Personality and vocational interests in an adult sample. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence at the five-factor model. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 41, pp ). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. Dillon, M., & Weissman, S. (1987). Relationship between personality types on the Strong-Campbell and Myers-Briggs instruments. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 20, Freedman, M. B., Leary, T. F., Ossorio, A. G., & Coffey, H. S. (1951). The interpersonal dimension of personality. Journal of Personality, 20, Goh, D. S., & Leong, F. T. L. (1993). The relationship between Holland's theory of vocational interests and Eysenck's model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, Gottfredson, G. D., Jones, E. M., & Holland, J. L. (1993). Personality and vocational interests: The relation of Holland's six interest dimensions to five robust dimensions of personality. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, Hansen, J. C. (1984). The measurement of vocational interests: Issues and future directions. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (pp ). New York: Wiley. Hogan, R. (1983). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation Personality: Current theory and research (pp ). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Hogan, R. (1986). Hogan personality inventory manual. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems. Holland, J. L. (1985a). Making vocational choices (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall. Holland, J. L. (1985b).

11 Manual for the Vocational Preference Inventory. Odessa, FL. Psychological Assessment Resources. Hubert, L., & Arable, P. (1987). Evaluating order hypothesis within proximity matrices. Psychological Bulletin, 102, Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychology Review, 90, Kruskal, J. B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald. Lorr, M., & McNair, D. M. (1965). Expansion of the interpersonal behavior circle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, Peraino, J. M., & Willerman, L. (1983). Personality correlates of occupational power according to Holland types. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, Prediger, D. J. (1982). Dimensions underlying Holland's hexagon: Missing link between interests and occupations? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21, Prediger, D. J., & Vansickle, T. R. (1992). Locating occupations on Holland's hexagon: Beyond RIASEC. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, Roe, A. (1957). Early determinants of vocational choice. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 4, Rounds, J. B. (in press). Vocational interests: Evaluating structural hypotheses. In R. V. Dawis & D. Lubinski (Eds.), Assessing individual differences in human behavior: New concepts, methods, and findings. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. Rounds, J. B., Jr., & Tinsley, H. E. A. (1984). Diagnosis and treatment of vocational problems. In S. Brown & R. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (pp ). New York: Wiley. Rounds, J. B., & Tracey, T. J. (1990). From trait-and-factor to personenvironment fit counseling: Theory and process. In W. B. Walsh & S. H. Osipow (Eds.), Career counseling (pp. 1-44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rounds, J., Tracey, T. J., & Hubert, L. (1992). Methods for evaluating vocational interests structural hypothesis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, Rounds, J., & Tracey, T. J. (1993). Prediger's dimensional representation of Holland's RIASEC circumplex. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, Schneider, B. (1987a). E=f(P, B): The road to a radical approach to person-environment fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, Schneider, B. (1987b). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, Tracey, T. J. (in press). RANDALL: A program for evaluating circumplex models with 4, 6 or 8 types [Computer program]. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Department of Educational Psychology, Urbana--Champaign. Tracey, T. J., & Rounds, J. (1993). Evaluating Holland's and Gati's vocational-interest models: A structural meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, Wiggins, J. S. (1982). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior in clinical psychology. In P. C. Kendal, and J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology (pp ). New York: Wiley. Wiggins, J. S., & Broughton, R. (1985). The interpersonal circle: A structural model for the integration of personality research. In R. Hogan & W. H. Jones (Eds.), Perspectives in Personality: Vol. 1 (pp. 1-47). Greenwich, CN: JAI Press. Wiggins, J. S., Trapnell, P., & Phillips, N. (1988). Psychometric and geometric characteristics of the revised Interpersonal Adjectives Scales (IAS-R). Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, ~~~~~~~~ By PAUL L. SCHNEIDER, JENNIFER M. RYAN, TERENCE J. G. and TRACEY JAMES ROUNDS Paul L. Schneider and Jennifer M. Ryan are doctoral students; Terence J. G. Tracey and James Rounds are associate professors of of educational psychology, all in the Department of Educational Psychology University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to Paul Schneider, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Illinois, 210 Education, 1310 South Sixth Street, Champaign, IL

12 Copyright of Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development (American Counseling Association) is the property of American Counseling Association and its content may not be copied or ed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or articles for individual use.