Journal of Vocational Behavior 22, 63-81 (1983)

Applications of Self-Efficacy Theory to the Understanding and

Treatment of Career Indecision
KAREN M. TAYLOR

Ohio Wesleyan University

AND

NANCY E. BETZ

Ohio State University

The present study was designed to investigate the utility of Bandura’s self-
efficacy theory to the understanding and treatment of career indecision. More
specifically, the study involved the development of a measure of self-efficacy
expectations with regard to 50 tasks or behaviors required in career decision
making and the examination of the relationships of career decision-making self-
efficacy to several components of vocational indecision. A total of 346 subjects,
154 students attending a private liberal arts college and 193 students attending
a large state university, were administered the measure of career decision-making
self-efficacy expectations and the Career Decision Scale (Osipow, Camey, Winer,
Yanico, & Koschier, Columbus, Ohio: Marathon Consulting and Press, 1980).
In addition, Scholastic Aptitude Test verbal and math scores were obtained for
the liberal arts students, and American College Test math and English subtest
scores were obtained for the state university students. Results indicated first that
college students in general express considerable confidence in their ability to
complete the tasks necessary to make career decisions. In addition, however,
the strength of students’ career decision-making self-efficacy expectations was
strongly and negatively related to overall levels of career indecision and was,
in particular, related to the component of indecision described as a lack of
structure and confidence with respect to career decisions. Relationships of career
decision-making self-efficacy expectations to ability level were negligible. Based
on the findings of this study it is suggested that the concept of career-related

Parts of this study were presented as part of an APA symposium entitled “Applications
of Self-Efficacy Theory to Women’s Career Development,” Division 17, 15, and 35, Los
Angeles, August 1981. The comments and suggestions of John 0. Crites and Louise F.
Fitzgerald are greatly appreciated. The assistance of Betsy Barrett, Ted Williams, and Lisa
Lang in data collection and analysis and of Judy Reuter in preparation of the manuscript
is gratefully acknowledged. Requests for reprints should be sent to Nancy E. Betz, De-
partment of Psychology, Ohio State University, 1945N. High Street, Columbus, OH 43210.

63
OOOl-8791/83/010063-19$03.00/O
Copyri.@t Q 1983 by Academic Press, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form ~~wrved.
64 TAYLOR AND BETZ

self-efficacy expectations provides a useful framework for the understanding,

assessment, and treatment of at least some of the antecedents to vocational
indecision.

A recent focus of research on career indecision has involved the de-

velopment and evaluation of instruments assessing the components or
antecedents of indecision in high school and college students. Research
using the Career Decision Scale (Osipow, Carney, Winer, Yanico, &
Koschier, 1980) and the Vocational Decision-Making Difficulty Scale
(Holland 62 Holland, 1977) has suggested such antecedents as lack of
confidence in decision-making skills, lack of a clear sense of personal
identity, external barriers to preferred choices, and, simply, a lack of
immediacy of the need to make a decision (Holland & Holland, 1977;
Osipow, Carney, Jz Barak, 1976; Slaney, Palko-Nonemaker, & Alex-
ander, 1981). Although instruments such as the Career Decision Scale
have been very useful in the generation and assessment of a range of
possible components of indecision, Slaney et al. (1981) suggest the need
for clearer specification and examination of specific causal factors and
for the development of assessment methods having meaningful and direct
implications for both the design and evaluation of intervention strategies.
One component of indecision in need of further elaboration is that
summarized by Osipow et al. (1976) as a lack of structure and confidence,
in combination with choice anxiety, leading to the avoidance of a vo-
cational choice, or by Holland and Holland (1977) as a lack of confidence
in decision-making skills. The consistent appearance of this component
in factor-analytic studies (e.g., Kazin, 1976; Osipow et al., 1976; Slaney
et al., 1981) suggests its importance as an explanatory variable, but
further refinements in its conceptualization, including the development
of assessment methods having more direct implications for intervention,
would increase its usefulness.
One potentially valuable approach to the refinement of the component
of lack of structure and confidence, particularly in terms of applications
to intervention strategies, involves the concept of self-efficacy expec-
tations, derived from Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy theory. Self-efficacy
expectations, i.e., a person’s beliefs concerning his/her ability to suc-
cessfully perform a given task or behavior, are postulated by Bandura
(1977) to be the major mediators of behavior and behavior change. Low
self-efficacy expectations regarding a behavior or behavioral domain lead
to avoidance of those behaviors, and increases in self-efficacy expec-
tations should increase the frequency of approach vs avoidance behavior.
Application of the concept of self-efficacy expectations to the component
of lack of confidence in career indecision involves redefining the latter
as constituting primarily low expectations of self-efficacy with respect
 SELF-EFFICACY EXPECTATIONS AND CAREER INDECISION 65

to the specific tasks and behaviors required in making career decisions.

Theoretically, low expectations of self-efficacy would lead to avoidance
of those tasks and behaviors and, consequently, continued indecision.
The particular advantage of the proposed redefinition is the direct
relationship of the assessment of self-efficacy expectations to the design
of intervention strategies. Bandura (1977) first specifies four sources of
information through which self-efficacy expectations are learned and by
which they can be modified. These sources of information include (1)
performance accomplishments, i.e., experiences of successfully perform-
ing the behaviors in question; (2) vicarious learning or modeling; (3)
verbal persuasion, e.g., encouragement and support from others; and
(4) emotional arousal, e.g., anxiety, in connection with the behavior.
Anxiety is viewed by Bandura as a “coeffect” of self-efficacy expec-
tations in that the level of anxiety is seen to covary inversely with the
level and strength of self-efficacy expectations; as self-efficacy expec-
tations are increased, anxiety should decrease and vice versa. Thus,
interventions focused on increasing self-efficacy expectations via atten-
tion to the sources of efficacy information should increase approach vs
avoidant behavior and, concurrently, decrease anxiety in relationship to
the behavior.
Second, interventions designed to increase self-efficacy expectations
are based directly on the prior assessment of levels of self-efficacy ex-
pectations with respect to domain-relevant behaviors. Those behaviors
in relationship to which self-efficacy expectations are weak are the be-
haviors toward which intervention efforts are directed. Further, the re-
sults of assessment provide an individualized hierarchy of behavioral
items arranged in order of degree of perceived self-efficacy with regard
to their accomplishment. The hierarchy, like those used in systematic
desensitization treatments, provides a structure by which intervention
may proceed from less difficult (in terms of the individual’s perceived
capabilities) to progressively more difficult behaviors. In terms of career
decision-making tasks and behaviors, the assessment of self-efficacy ex-
pectations with regard to those behaviors would therefore provide the
specific behavioral targets of interventions based on Bandura’s (1977)
four sources of efficacy information.
Thus, the present study was designed to investigate the utility of the
concept of self-efficacy expectations to the understanding and treatment
of career indecision. More specifically, its purposes were (1) to develop
a method for the assessment of self-efficacy expectations with respect
to career decision-making tasks, (2) to examine the psychometric and
normative properties of the measure, and (3) to examine the relationships
of career decision-making self-efficacy expectations to career indecision.
66 TAYLOR AND BETZ

METHOD
Instruments
The first step in the assessment of self-efficacy expectations involved
the definition and specification of the behavioral domain of interest
(Bandura, 1977). The domain of behaviors relevant to the process of
career decision making was herein defined as behaviors indicative of the
five Career Choice Competencies postulated in Crites’ (1961, 1965) model
of career maturity. Thus, the domain was specified as including those
behaviors relevant to the career choice competencies of (1) accurate self-
appraisal, (2) gathering occupational information, (3) goal selection, (4)
making plans for the future, and (5) problem solving. Following speci-
fication of the domain of interest, the definitions of each competency
(Crites, 1973, pp. 23-29) were reviewed to determine specific behaviors
relevant to each competency. For each of the five competency areas,
10 behavioral items judged to accurately and comprehensively reflect
that competency were selected. The 50 tasks and the scale reflected by
each task are contained in Table 1.
Self-efficacy expectations with regard to the career decision-making
tasks were assessed by requesting the respondent to indicate his/her
TABLE 1
Perceived Difficulty of Career Decision-Making Tasks Arranged from Most to
Least Difficult (N = 346)

Confidence rating Order

of
Item M SD difficulty Subscale

Make a career decision and then not 5.18 2.33 1 Goal

worry about whether it was right or Selection
wrong.
Find information about companies who 5.51 2.00 2 Occupational
employ people with college majors in Information
English.
Come up with a strategy to deal with 5.59 2.26 3 Problem
flunking out of college. Solving
Go back to school to get a graduate 5.12 2.12 4 Problem
degree after being out of school 5-10 Solving
years.
Find information about educational 5.95 2.12 5 Occupational
programs in engineering. Information
Make a plan of your goals for the next 6.02 2.23 6 Planning
five years.
Choose a major or career that your 6.66 2.38 7 Goal
parents do not approve of. Selection
Prepare a good resume. 6.17 1.98 8 Planning
Change occupations if you are not 6.22 1.85 9 Problem
satisfied with the one you enter. Solving
 SELF-EFFICACY EXPECTATIONS AND CAREER INDECISION 67

TABLE l-Continued

Confidence rating Order

of
Item M SD difftculty Subscale

Choose the major you want even though 6.25 l.% 10 Goal
the job market is declining with Selection
opportunities in this field.
Accurately assess your abilities. 6.31 1.52 11 Self-Appraisal
Get letters of recommendation from your 6.33 1.76 12 Planning
professors.
Determine the steps to take if you are 6.37 1.60 13 Problem
having academic trouble with an aspect Solving
of your chosen major.
Choose a career in which most workers 6.48 1.99 14 Goal
are the opposite sex. Selection
Identify some reasonable major or career 6.43 1.66 15 Problem
alternatives if you are unable to get Solving
your first choice.
Change majors if you did not like your 6.58 1.88 16.5 Problem
first choice. Solving
Figure out whether you have the ability 6.58 2.02 16.5 Self-Appraisal
to successfully take math courses.
Figure out what you are and are not 6.62 1.62 18 Self-Appraisal
ready to sacrifice to achieve your
career goals.
Find and use the placement office on 6.65 1.93 19 Planning
campus.
Determine what your ideal job would be. 6.72 1.89 20 Self-Appraisal
Select one occupation from a list of 6.73 1.80 21 Goal
potential occupations you are Selection
considering.
Describe the job duties of the career/ 6.79 1.67 22 Occupational
occupation you would like to pursue. Information
Successfully manage the job interview 6.79 1.68 23 Planning
process.
Select one major from a list of potential 6.84 I.% 24 Goal
majors you are considering. Selection
Apply again to graduate schools after 6.84 1.80 25 Problem
being rejected the first time. Solving
Find information in the library about 6.85 1.89 26 Occupational
occupations you are interested in. Information
Find out the employment trends for an 6.89 1.61 27 Occupational
occupation in the 1980s. Information
List several majors that you are 6.94 1.86 28 Self-Appraisal
interested in.
Move to another city to get the kind of 6.95 1.86 29 Problem
job you really would like. Solving
Decide what you value most in an 6.97 1.54 30 Self-Appraisal
occupation.
Persistently work at your major or career 7.03 1.60 31 Problem
goal even when you get frustrated. Solving
68 TAYLOR AND BETZ

TABLE I-Continued

Confidence rating Order

of
Item M SD diiculty Subscale

Choose a career that will fit your 7.07 1.56 32 Goal

preferred lifestyle. Selection
Plan course work outside of your major 7.07 1.59 33 Planning
that will help you in your future career.
Determine the academic subject you have 7.09 1.49 34 Self-Appraisal
the most ability in.
Identify employers, firms, institutions 7.12 1.63 35 Planning
relevant to your career possibilities.
Resist attempts of parents or friends to 7.19 1.69 36 Problem
push you into a career or major you Solving
believe is beyond your abilities.
Determine the steps you need to take to 7.23 1.66 37 Planning
successfully complete your chosen
major.
List several occupations that you are 7.26 1.69 38 Self-Appraisal
interested in.
Choose a major or career that will suit 7.36 1.38 39 Goal
your abilities. Selection
Decide whether or not you will need to 7.37 1.49 40 Planning
attend graduate or professional school
to achieve your career goals.
Choose a major or career that will fit 7.37 1.50 41 Goal
your interests. Selection
Choose the best major for you even if it 7.39 1.67 42 Goal
took longer to finish your college Selection
degree.
Get involved in a work experience 7.43 1.50 43 Planning
relevant to your future goals.
Find information about graduate or 7.46 1.46 44 Occupational
professional schools. Information
Find out about the average yearly 7.46 1.48 45 Occupational
earnings of people in an occupation. Information
Ask a faculty member about graduate 7.48 1.55 46 Occupational
schools and job opportunities in your Information
major.
Talk to a faculty member in a department 7.48 1.56 47 Occupational
you are considering for a major. Information
Define the type of lifestyle you would like 7.68 1.43 48 Self-Appraisal
to live.
Determine whether you would rather 7.68 1.40 49 Self-Appraisal
work primarily with people or with
information.
Talk with a person already employed in 7.85 1.39 50 Occupational
the field you are interested in. Information
 SELF-EFFICACY EXPECTATIONS AND CAREER INDECISION 69

confidence in his/her ability to successfully complete each task. Re-

sponses were obtained on a lo-point scale ranging from Complete Con-
fidence (9) to No Confidence (0). In addition to confidence scores for
each task, confidence scores for the five subscales were the sum of
responses to the 10 scale items; the maximum subscale score was 90.
A total score reflecting self-efficacy expectations with regard to all 50
career decision-making tasks was calculated by summing the confidence
ratings for the 50 items; the maximum score on the Career Decision-
Making Self-Efficacy Scale (CDMSE) was 450.
It should be noted that because the assessment of self-efficacy ex-
pectations falls within the realm of behavioral assessment in general and
cognitive-behavioral assessment in particular (e.g., see Ciminero, Cal-
houn, & Adams, 1977; Kendall & Korgeski, 1979), assessment is not
focused on the development of a “scale” in the traditional psychometric
sense but rather on the delineation of specific domain-relevant behaviors
with regard to which an individual’s expectations of self-efficacy are
assessed (e.g., Goldfried & Kent, 1972; Kazdin, 1978). Because the focus
of interventions designed to increase self-efficacy expectations is on
specific behaviors, responses to each behavioral item are intended to be
interpretable and to have utility for intervention strategies. Further, the
focus of assessment in an applied setting involves the construction of
an individualized hierarchy of perceived task difficulty, where lower and/
or weaker self-efficacy expectations are associated with greater perceived
difficulty for a particular individual. Thus, the assessment of self-efficacy
expectations is analogous to the development of behavioral hierarchies
used in the design of systematic desensitization procedures for specific
individuals.
Vocational indecision was assessed using the Career Decision Scale
(CDS; Osipow et al., 1980). The CDS, designed to measure educational/
vocational indecision in college students, consists of 18 items pertaining
to various aspects of vocational decision making. Responses are obtained
using a 4-point Likert scale with response alternatives ranging from
“exactly like me” (scored 4) to “not at all like me” (scored 1). Items
1 and 2 measure the extent to which a respondent endorses statements
reflecting a definite choice of an educational major (Item 1) and a career
alternative (Item 2). The composite of the scores on Items 1 and 2
provides an index of vocational/educational decidedness. The sum of
Items 3-18 provides an index of vocational indecision. Indecision scores
may range from 16 to 64, with higher scores indicating greater degrees
of vocational indecision. Test-retest reliability coefficients for the CDS
were .90 and .81 for two samples of college students over a 2-week
test-retest period (Osipow et al., 1976). An extensive review of the CDS
is contained in the manual (Osipow, 1980).
70 TAYLOR AND BETZ

In addition to obtaining the total career indecision scores, factor scores

were also calculated. Using the factor structure reported in the CDS
manual (Osipow, 1980), Factor 1 (lack of structure and confidence) con-
sisted of eight items, while Factor 2 (approach-approach conflicts) con-
sisted of five items. The third factor, external barriers to preferred choice,
was based on four items, and the fourth factor, personal conflict, was
defined by one item.
Subjects and Procedures
Two groups of college students, a total of 346 subjects, were utilized
in the present study. The first group, a sample of 68 male and 85 female
students, were attending a private liberal arts university located in the
midwest. The second group consisted of 60 male and 133 female students
attending a large state university in the midwest. The majority of the
students (79%) were freshman, 16% were sophomores, and the remaining
5% were juniors and seniors. The mean age of subjects was 19.1 years.
All subjects were volunteers who received course credit for their
participation.
Following administration of a questionnaire requesting demographic
information, the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale and the
Career Decision Scale were administered in counter balanced order. In
addition, scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) were obtained
from university records for 54% of Group 1 subjects, and scores on the
American College Test (ACT) were available for 76% of Group 2 subjects.
Analysis of Data
Means, standard deviations, and item-total score correlations were
calculated for each item of the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy
Scale, and items were arranged in a hierarchy of perceived difficulty for
college students in general. The concept of task difficulty as used in the
study of self-efficacy expectations differs from that used in traditional
psychometric theory, i.e., as the percentage of correct responses to a
given item. Rather, the concept describes the degree to which an indi-
vidual perceives the behavioral item as &thin the range of his/her ca-
pabilities, or expectations of efficacy. Lower self-efficacy expectations
are associated with greater perceived task difficulty and vice versa. Al-
though intervention purposes call for the construction of individual rather
than group difficulty hierarchies, the average level of self-efficacy across
subjects was used herein to indicate relative perceived difficulty of the
50 tasks studied.
Means, standard deviations, and t tests of the significance of sex
differences were obtained for the CDMSE total and subscale scores and
the CDS indecision score. Pearson product-moment correlations de-
scribing the relationships among the CDMSE and CDS total and subscale
 SELF-EFFICACY EXPECTATIONS AND CAREER INDECISION 71

scores were obtained, and stepwise multiple regression analyses of the

relationships of career decision-making self-efficacy and verbal and math
ability to career indecision were performed separately for Group 1 and
Group 2 subjects.
Finally, an iterated principal components factor analysis with varimax
rotation was used to investigate the structure of the 50 items of the
CDMSE. Principal components analysis was used to ensure that both
the common and specific variance among the scales would be represented
in the factors. Based on theoretical considerations, five factors were
extracted.
RESULTS
Because this study represented the first use of the Career Decision-
Making Self-Efficacy Scale (CDMSE), data regarding item and scale
properties were obtained prior to other analyses of CDMSE scores.
Results indicated high internal consistency reliability; the standardized
value of coefficient alpha was .97 within each subject group and for the
total group of 346 subjects. Item-total score correlations were generally
high; values for 43 of the 50 items (86%) were in the range of 50 to 80,
and only one value was below .30 (‘pb = .29).’ Reliabilities (coefficient
alpha) of the five lo-item subscales were .88, .89, .87, .89, and .86 for
Self-Appraisal, Occupational Information, Goal Selection, Planning, and
Problem Solving, respectively.
The means and standard deviations of scores obtained for each of the
50 items are shown in Table 1. As shown, item difficulties ranged from
5.18 (representing “Some Confidence” in one’s ability to perform the
behavior) to 7.85 (representing “Considerable Confidence”). The most
difficult item was “Make a career decision and then not worry about
whether it was right or wrong,” and the least difficult was “Talk with
a person already employed in the field you are interested in.” The 10
most difficult items included three problem solving, three goal selection,
and two each from the Occupational Information and Planning Subscales.
No self-appraisal items were among the most difficult.
The means and standard deviations of scores for the five subscales of
the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale are shown in Table 2.
Scores are shown separately for Group 1 (students attending a private
liberal arts college) and Group 2 (students attending a large state uni-
versity). As shown in Table 2, the subscale means were similar to each
other in both groups, ranging from 64.0 to 68.8 in Group 1 and from 65.1
to 70.4 in Group 2. Although the Group 2 means were somewhat higher
than the Group 1 means, these differences were nonsignificant. For the

’ Complete data regarding item total-score correlations are available from the second
author.
72 TAYLOR AND BETZ

TABLE 2
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores on the Career Decision-Making
Self-Efficacy Scale

Test of
Males Females significance Total group

Scale M SD M SD t P M SD

Subject Group 1”
Self-Appraisal 69.0 10.8 68.1 11.8 .52 50 68.5 11.3
Occupational 68.4 12.2 69.2 12.6 - .37 .71 68.8 12.4
Information
Goal Setting 64.6 11.6 63.9 13.3 .37 .71 64.2 12.5
Planning 67.1 12.3 66.4 12.2 .35 .72 66.7 12.2
Problem 64.7 9.8 63.4 12.5 .68 .50 64.0 11.4
Solving
Total score 333.8 50.6 330.9 56.7 .33 .74 332.2 53.9
Subject Group 2”
Self-Appraisal 69.2 10.2 70.9 10.2 -1.07 .29 70.4 10.2
Occupational 68.4 11.0 70.3 10.5 -1.11 .27 69.7 10.7
Information
Goal Setting 65.5 11.2 69.1 11.2 -2.11 .04 70.0 11.3
Planning 66.5 11.0 69.9 11.2 -2.00 .05 68.8 11.2
Problem 64.0 11.7 65.7 11.0 -0.91 .36 65.1 11.2
Solving
Total score 333.6 49.2 345.9 49.7 -1.60 .ll 342.1 49.7
Total group
Self-Appraisal 69.1 10.5 69.8 10.9 - .58 .56 69.6 10.8
Occupational 68.4 11.6 69.9 11.4 -1.12 .27 69.3 11.5
Information
Goal Setting 65.0 11.4 67.1 12.3 - 1.58 .12 66.3 12.0
Planning 66.8 11.7 68.5 11.7 - 1.34 .18 67.9 11.7
Problem 64.4 10.7 64.8 11.6 - .35 .73 64.6 11.3
Solving
Total score 333.7 49.7 340.1 52.9 - 1.12 .26 337.7 51.8

Note. Degrees of freedon for t tests were 151 for Group 1, 191 for Group 2, and 344
for the total group.
a Group 1 consisted of 68 male and 88 female students attending a private liberal arts
college located in the midwest. Group 2 consisted of 60 male and 133 female students
attending a large midwestem state university. The total group, therefore, consisted of 128
male and 218 female subjects.

combined group of subjects (N = 346), the highest mean score was

obtained on the Self-Appraisal Scale (M = 69.6), while the lowest mean
was on the Problem-Solving Scale (M = 64.6). It should be noted that
because each subscale of the CDMSE consisted of 10 items, the mean
item response was in the range of 6.4 to 7.0. Thus, college students on
the average indicate considerable confidence in their ability to perform
the tasks necessary to effective career decision making.
Table 2 also shows that male and female college students reported
 SELF-EFFICACY EXPECTATIONS AND CAREER INDECISION 73

equivalently strong self-efficacy expectations with regard to career de-

cision-making tasks. No sex differences on either the subscales or the
total CDMSE score were evident in Group 1 or the total group. In Group
2, females reported somewhat greater self-efficacy with regard to goal-
setting and planning tasks, but their total CDMSE score was not sig-
nificantly greater than that of males. Thus, the data shown in Table 2
generally suggest a lack of sex differences in self-efficacy expectations
with regard to career decision-making tasks.
With regard to career indecision, no significant sex differences were
found in Group 1; means of 29.4 for males and 30.2 for females were
equivalent to those found in normative sample (Osipow, 1980). In con-
trast, female students in Group 2 obtained significantly lower indecision
scores (indicating greater decidedness) than did their male counterparts;
the mean of 24.7 among females in Group 2 was significantly less than
that of 28.4 among Group 2 males @ < .Ol) and was also significantly
less than that found in Group 1 males and females.
The intercorrelations of the CDMSE and CDS total and subscale or
factor scores are shown in Table 3. Values of the Pearson product-moment
correlation are shown for the combined subject group; the values found
within Groups 1 and 2 were not significantly different from each other.
As shown in the table, the subscales of the CDMSE were strongly related
both to each other and to the total CDMSE score. The CDS factor scores
were moderately intercorrelated, with Factor 4 showing the smallest
relationships (r = .24 to r = .37) to the other factor scores and to the
total indecision score. Factor 1 of the CDS (i.e., lack of structure and
confidence) showed the strongest relationships to the CDMSE scores;
values ranged from - .31 (Factor 1 with the CDMSE Problem-Solving
Subscale) to r = - 51 (Factor 1 with Goal Selection). The total inde-
cision score and scores on Factors 2 and 3 were also moderately and
negatively related to career decision-making self-efficacy expectations.
Thus, as postulated, students who were more undecided reported less
confidence in their ability to complete tasks necessary to making career
decisions.
Relationships of CDMSE scores to ACT or SAT scores were small
in magnitude and generally nonsignificant. Relationships with SAT scores
ranged from r = .07 (SAT-M and the Problem-Solving Subscale) to r
= .25 (SAT-V and the Occupational Information Subscale); correlations
between SAT-V and SAT-M and the total CDMSE score were r =
.19 and .18, respectively. Relationships with ACT scores ranged from r
= -. 11 (ACT-Math and Goal Selection) to r = .21 (ACT-English and
Occupational Information); correlations with the total CDMSE score
were r = .15 (English) and r = - .02 (Math).
Table 4 summarizes the results obtained from the stepwise multiple
regression analysis using career indecision scores as the dependent vari-
able and career decision-making self-efficacy and verbal and math ability
 TABLE 3
Interrelationships of Scores of the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy and Career Indecision Scales

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy

1. Self-Appraisal
2. Occupational Information .76
3. Goal Selection .78 .72
4. Planning .79 .85 .83
5. Problem Solving .77 .72 .lS .I8
6. Total score 90 .89 .90 .94 .89
Career Decision Scale”
7. Factor 1 - .35 - .35 - .51 -.44 -.31 -44
8. Factor 2 -.18 - .15 - .33 -.29 -.16 - .25 .67
9. Factor 3 - .27 -.30 - .42 -.37 -.26 - .36 .73 .50
10. Factor 4 - .03 -.04 -.06 - .02 -.02 - .Ol .24 .30 .34
11. Total score - .31 - .31 - .48 - .42 -.29 -.40 .94 .85 .79 .31

Nore. Based on an N of 346; r values of .13 and .18 are statistically significant at the .Ol and .OOl levels, respectively.
’ Factors l-4 correspond to (1) lack of structure and confidence, (2) “approach-approach” problems, (3) external barriers, and (4) personal
conflict, as suggested in Osipow (1980).
 SELF-EFFICACY EXPECTATIONS AND CAREER INDECISION 75

TABLE 4
Regression Analyses for the Prediction of Career Indecision in College Students

Predictor variables B F Rb R2 Adjusted

Group 1 .48*** .20

Career decision-making - .36 12.3***
self-efficacy expectations
SAT-Verbal - .25 5.1*
SAT-Quantitative - .03 .l
Group 2 .32*** .09
Career decision-making -.27 11.1***
self-efficacy expectations
ACT-English usage -.13 1.6
ACT-math usage -.04 .l

* Degrees of freedom for F values of beta weights were 1,72 for Group 1 and 1,137 for
Group 2.
* Degrees of freedom for F values of R were 3,72 for Group 1 and 4,137 for Group 2.
* p < .05.
*** p < ,001.

as the independent variables; analyses were performed separately for

each subject group. As shown in the table, the obtained R in Group 1
was .48, accounting for 20% of the variance in indecision scores. The
strongest contributor to the prediction of career indecision was the total
CDMSE score; lower levels of career decision-making self-efficacy were
related to greater career indecision. Scores on the verbal portion of the
SAT were also significant predictors of level of career indecision. In
Group 2 only career decision-making self-efficacy expectations contrib-
uted significantly to the prediction of career indecision; ACT scores did
not add significantly to its prediction.
Finally, Table 5 presents the loadings of the 50 items of the CDMSE

TABLE 5
Results of Factor Analysis of Items of the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale

Factor

Item 1 2 3 4 5

Items loading highest on Factor 1

List several majors that you are interested in. 54 42 42 13 42
Accurately assess your abilities. 56 51 50 44 43
List several occupations that you are interested 67 48 46 16 52
in.
Choose a career that will fit your preferred 66 60 41 43 36
lifestyle.
Talk to a faculty member in a department you 66 38 51 37 24
are considering for a major.
Get letters of recommendation from your 58 43 48 45 13
professors.
76 TAYLOR AND BETZ

TABLE S-Continued

Factor

Item 1 2 3 4 5

Change occupations if you are not satisfied with 55 42 48 50 45

the one you enter.
Decide what you value most in an occupation. 73 51 42 40 49
Ask a faculty member about graduate schools 71 36 60 43 15
and job opportunities in your major.
Get involved in a work experience relevant to 68 43 45 55 21
your future goals.
Describe the job duties of the career/occupation 68 60 38 43 27
you would like to pursue.
Determine the academic subject you have the 63 42 48 40 26
most ability in.
Choose a major or career that will fit your 83 68 40 47 33
interests.
Decide whether or not you will need to attend 75 49 51 43 25
graduate or professional school to achieve
your career goals.
Apply again to graduate schools after being 59 29 33 40 28
rejected the first time.
Determine whether you would rather work 69 40 36 33 29
primarily with people or with information.
Choose a major or career that will suit your 79 64 41 45 30
abilities.
Plan course work outside of your major that 73 59 50 48 32
will help you in your future career.
Identify some reasonable major or career 69 52 51 40 45
alternatives if you are unable to get your
first choice.
Figure out what you are and are not ready to 62 49 50 44 35
sacrifice to achieve your career goals.
Talk with a person already employed in the 19 48 47 46 16
field you are interested in.
Choose the best major for you even if it took II 54 43 50 18
longer to finish your college degree.
Identify employers, firms, institutions relevant 75 52 55 51 19
to your career possibilities.
Define the type of lifestyle you would like to 58 35 25 21 40
live.
Find information about graduate or professional IO 37 68 42 20
schools.
Choose the major you want even though 53 41 27 34 39
the job market is declining with opportunities
in this field.
Successfully manage the job interview process. 60 43 36 40 49
Items loading highest on Factor 2
Select one major from a list of potential majors 45 80 31 15 22
you are considering.
Make a plan of your goals for the next five 47 77 32 20 25
years.
 SELF-EFFICACY EXPECTATIONS AND CAREER INDECISION 77

TABLE Continued

Factor

Item 1 2 3 4 5
Select one occupation from a list of potential 41 80 32 22 28
occupations you are considering.
Determine the steps you need to take to 51 67 60 32 16
successfully complete your chosen major.
Persistently work at your major or career goal 52 55 54 37 28
even when you get frustrated.
Prepare a good resume. 49 51 49 30 39
Determine what your ideal job would be. 60 61 25 40 36
Make a career decision and then not worry 44 59 31 59 24
about whether it was right or wrong.
Items loading highest on Factor 3
Find information in the library about 54 48 59 23 35
occupations you are interested in.
Determine the steps to take if you are having 53 53 62 42 33
academic trouble with an aspect of your
chosen major.
Find information about companies who employ 31 31 64 29 27
people with college majors in English.
Find information about educational programs in 31 29 75 23 21
engineering.
Figure out whether you have the ability to 32 23 40 33 15
successfully take math courses.
Find and use the placement office on campus. 44 22 61 47 11
Find out the employment trends for an 51 33 67 25 31
occupation in the 1980s.
Find out about the average yearly earnings of 55 41 56 30 23
people in an occupation.
Items loading highest on Factor 4
Choose a major or career that your parents do 28 09 23 56 18
not approve of.
Resist attempts of parents or friends to push 40 27 22 54 28
you into a career or major you believe is
beyond your abilities.
Choose a career in which most workers are the 18 35 42 11
opposite sex.
Move to another city to get the kind of job you 27 34 57 11
really would like.
Go back to school to get a graduate degree 33 38 56 31
after being out of school 5-10 years.
Items loading highest on Factor 5
Change majors if you did not like your first 42 38 49
choice.
Come up with a strategy to deal with flunking 20 24 47
out of college.
Percentage of variance accounted for 16.9 8.1 4.9

Note. Decimal points have been omitted from the factor loadings.
78 TAYLOR AND BETZ

on the five factors resulting from the iterated principal components anal-
ysis; items are arranged on the basis of the factor on which their highest
loading occurred. The five factors when rotated accounted for 52% of
the total variance, with Factors 1 through 5 accounting for 16.9, 11.4,
10.7, 8.1, and 4.9% of the variance, respectively.
It may first be noted that the factor structure is not clear-cut; many
items, particularly those loading highest on the first factor, have relatively
large loadings on several other factors as well. For example, Item 21,
loading .73 on Factor 1, has loadings ranging from .40 to .51 on the other
four factors. The majority of items have loadings of at least .30 on two
or more factors. Thus, the high degree of internal consistency and high
intersubscale correlations reported previously are correspondent with
the relatively large general factor and with the relative failure of individual
items to load on only one factor.
Given the interpretive caution suggested by the overall pattern of factor
loadings, the first factor extracted appeared to be a general factor in-
cluding items from all five of the subscales defined a priori. Of the 27
items having their highest loadings on Factor 1, the Self-Appraisal, Oc-
cupational Information, Goal-Selection, Planning, and Problem-Solving
Subscales contributed eight, five, five, six, and three items, respectively.
Factor 2, on which eight items had their highest loadings, contains three
goal-selection items, three planning items, and one item from both the
Self-Appraisal and Problem-Solving Subscales. Although the item content
is somewhat heterogeneous, several of the items appear to reflect concern
with the need to make one choice from among several alternatives. The
third factor contains eight items pertaining primarily to the search for
occuptional information contained in written materials. In contrast, the
five occupational information items loading most highly on Factor 1
pertained to seeking information from other people, e.g., faculty or in-
dividuals employed in the field. Factor 4 contains five items reflecting
some type of barrier to preferred choice, and Factor 5 includes two items
pertaining to problem solving.
DISCUSSION
The present study resulted in the development of a reliable measure
of self-efficacy expectations with respect to the tasks required in career
decision making. Normative data collected from this sample of 346 col-
lege students indicated that students in general indicate considerable
confidence in their ability to perform the tasks necessary to career de-
cision making. In addition, levels of self-efficacy did not differ signiti-
cantly as a function of subject gender or the category of decision-making
task assessed, i .e . , self-appraisal, occupational information, goal selec-
tion, planning, and problem solving.
Although self-efficacy expectations with regard to career decision
 SELF-EFFICACY EXPECTATIONS AND CAREER INDECISION 79

making were, on the average, relatively strong, levels of self-efficacy

were significantly predictive of levels of career indecision; students re-
porting less confidence in their ability to complete decision-making tasks
were more undecided than those reporting higher levels of confidence.
In addition, career decision-makingself-efficacyexpectationswere strongly
related to the components of indecision as proposed by Osipow (1980),
particularly to that of lack of structure and confidence.
These findings therefore suggest a moderately strong relationship be-
tween career decision-making self-efficacy and career indecision. Stu-
dents who are less confident in their ability to complete the tasks and
behaviors required for effective decision making are more likely to report
being vocationally undecided. It may be that students who lack confi-
dence in their ability to complete decision-making tasks fail to engage
in those tasks and thus remain undecided. On the other hand, students
who are more decided may be so because they have actually completed
some of the necessary tasks; theoretically, experiences of successful
performance accomplishments should increase self-efficacy expectations
with respect to those tasks (Bandura, 1977). Thus, stronger self-efficacy
expectations would be a consequence of vocational decidedness as well
as an antecedent to vocational indecision. The present study clearly does
not allow inferences regarding causal relationships; thus, explication of
the effects of self-efficacy expectations on vocational indecision and vice
versa await further research.
Also of interest was the finding of little or no relationship between
ability level and self-efficacy expectations with regard to career decision-
making tasks. Most of the tasks studied should be within the realm of
capabilities of most college students, and the present findings support
Bandura’s postulate that individual differences in self-efficacy expecta-
tions are a major mediator of individual differences in behavior, in this
case, behaviors necessary to career decision making.
Although the domain of behaviors used in the assessment of career
decision-making self-efficacy expectations was defined and operational-
ized on the basis of the five career choice competencies postulated by
Crites (1973), the results reported herein did not support the existence
of five subscales parallel to the five competencies. The internal consist-
ency reliability of .97 for the total scale, the high intersubscale corre-
lations, and the obtained factor structure suggested,rather, the existence
of a substantial general factor, with most items loading highly on that
factor. This large general factor may bear most in common with the
“lack of structure and confidence” factor of the CDS. Thus, while the
use of existing theory, i.e., Crites (1965) model of career maturity, was
necessary in providing a framework by which a varied yet comprehensive
domain of behaviors important to the process of career decision making
could be defined, the measure developed herein may be more appro-
80 TAYLOR AND BETZ

priately viewed as a means of assessing self-efficacy expectations with

regard to the general domain of career decision-making tasks and
behaviors.
It should also be noted that although the instrument developed herein
sampled 50 tasks or behaviors important in the process of career decision
making, it by no means included every possible task or behavior relevant
to that process. For example, the items utilized emphasized perceived
capabilities with regard to undergraduate, graduate, and professional
education rather than, for example, vocational/technical training. Other
items emphasized the process of obtaining occupational information with
regard to specific majors or occupations (i.e., items ranked 2 and 5 in
Table 1). Although items such as these are intended to apply to the
general process of obtaining occupational information, their nature and
specificity may be inappropriate for use in some applied settings. Thus,
selective modifications in item content may increase the utility of the
instrument for specific purposes and in specific settings.
The measure of career decision-making self-efficacy expectations,
while in need of further evaluative research, has considerable potential
utility for the assessment and treatment of career indecision. First, its
use as an assessment device yields both a general index of the strength
of self-efficacy expectations with respect to tasks and behaviors required
in the process of career decision making and an individualized hierarchy
of tasks toward which interventions may be directed. The general level
of the individual’s self-efficacy expectations could be used as an indicator
of the degree to which interventions designed to increase career decision-
making self-efficacy expectations would be potentially helpful. If such
interventions appear warranted, the availability of the individualized
hierarchy allows the intervention to begin with relatively easy tasks and
to proceed with successively more difficult tasks as self-efficacy expec-
tations are increased and strengthened.
Thus, the concept of self-efficacy expectations and an instrument such
as that developed herein provide both a structure for interventions and
specific behaviors with which to begin and from which to progress with
those interventions. While related concepts such as career indecision
have been useful both conceptually and heuristically, the behaviorally
specific nature of the concept of self-efficacy expectations suggests its
particular utility in terms of interventions and in terms of the direct
connection of assessment to intervention plans.
Further research examining the antecedents and consequences of ca-
reer decision-making self-efficacy expectations and the effectiveness of
interventions designed to increase those expectations is necessary. The
present study does, however, suggest the utility of attention to the role
of cognitive-mediational factors, in particular self-efficacy expectations,
in vocational behavior. Further, the results of this study provide a con-
 SELF-EFFICACY EXPECTATIONS AND CAREER INDECISION 81

ceptual framework and methodology for both assessmentand interven-

tion with respect to problems in career decision making.
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 1977, 84, 191-215.
Ciminero, A. R., Calhoun, K. S., & Adams, H. E. Handbook of behavioral assessment.
New York: Wiley, 1977.
Crites, J. 0. A model for the measurement of vocational maturity. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 1961, 8, 255-259.
Crites, J. 0. Measurement of vocational maturity in adolescence: I. Attitude Test of the
Vocational Development Inventory. Psychological Monographs, 1965, 79, (2, Whole
No. 595).
Crites, J. 0. Career Maturity Inventory: Theory and research handbook. Monterey, Calif.:
CTB/McGraw-Hill, 1973.
Goldfried, M. R., & Kent, R. N. Traditional versus behavioral personality assessment:
A comparison of methodological and theoretical assumptions. Psychological Bulletin,
1972, 77, 409-420.
Holland, J. L., & Holland, J. E. Vocational indecision: More evidence and speculation.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1977, 24, 404-414.
Kazdin, A. E. Conceptual and assessment issues raised by self-efficacy theory. Advances
in Behavior Research and Therapy, 1978, 1, 177-185.
Kazin, R. I. The relationship between types of indecision and interest test patterns. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1976.
Kendall, P. C., & Korgeski, G. P. Assessment and cognitive-behavioral interventions.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1979, 3, l-21.
Osipow, S. H. Manual for the Career Decision Scale. Columbus, Ohio: Marathon Con-
sulting and Press, 1980.
Osipow, S. H., Camey, C. G., & Barak, A. A scale of educational and vocational un-
decidedness: A typological approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1976, 9,
233-243.
Osipow, S. H., Camey, C. G., Winer, J. L., Yanico, B., & Koschier, M. The Career
Decision Scale. Columbus, Ohio: Marathon Consulting and Press, 1980. 3rd rev.
Slaney, R. B., Palko-Nonemaker, D., & Alexander, R. An investigation of two measures
of career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1981, 18, 92-103.
Received: October 26, 1981.