The influence of role models on women's career choices.

This study of 368 female undergraduates examined self-efficacy and role model influence as predictors of career choice across J. L. Holland's (1997) 6 RIASEC (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional) types. Findings showed that levels of self-efficacy and role model influence differed across Holland types. Multiple regression analyses indicated that self-efficacy and role model influence accounted for significant variance in career choice for all 6 RIASEC types. Role model influence added to the prediction of career choice over and above the contribution of self-efficacy in all but 1 of the RIASEC types. The importance of attention to role models in career counseling is discussed.

**********

Identification with role models is critical in the career decision-making process (see Gibson, 2004). Research has shown a relationship between role model influence and a variety of career-related outcomes, including career maturity (Flouri & Buchanan, 2002), career aspirations (Nauta, Epperson, & Kahn, 1998), career indecision (Perrone, Zanardelli, Worthington, & Chartrand, 2002), career salience, attitudes toward nontraditional careers (Nauta & Kokaly, 2001), and career choice (DeSantis & Quimby, 2004). Unfortunately, career counselors know less about the specific ways in which role models influence educational and career decisions. Thus, the purpose of this study was to generate new knowledge about the influence of role models on women's career choices for Holland's (1997) six RIASEC (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional) occupational typologies.

Role models have been defined as people whose lives and activities influence another person in some way (Basoc & Howe, 1979). Individuals tend to seek role models who are similar to them in some easily identifiable way, such as gender or race (Bandura, 1986; Hackett & Byars, 1996; Karunanayake & Nauta, 2004). Role models may be especially important to women because a lack of female role models in nontraditional careers (e.g., engineering, science) has been identified as a barrier for women who choose to enter these professions (Basoc & Howe, 1979; Betz, 1994; Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987; Hackett, Esposito, & O'Halloran, 1989; Nauta et al., 1998). Indeed, researchers have shown that female students perceive role models to be especially important for women who want to pursue nontraditional careers (Gilbert, 1985; Smith & Erb, 1986).

Despite studies showing that role models are influential in women's career decisions, it is unknown whether role models have a direct influence on women's career choices or if they are related to career choice indirectly through their influence on self-efficacy. Previous research on women's career development has identified self-efficacy as a critical factor in women's decision to choose nontraditional fields, including Investigative and Realistic career types (Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987; Betz & Hackett, 1983). However, few studies have examined the role of self-efficacy or role models as predictors of career choice in other academic/career domains (Gore & Leuwerke, 2000). Thus, our goal was to examine the influence of self-efficacy and role models on career choices for each of Holland's (1997) RIASEC types.

Recently, researchers have turned their attention to understanding how contextual variables (e.g., supports, barriers, role model influence) influence career choice (DeSantis & Quimby, 2004; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2000; Lent, Brown, Nota, & Soresi, 2003; Lent, Brown, Schmidt, et al., 2003; Quimby & O'Brien, 2004). Two hypotheses about the relationship between role models and career choice are discussed in the literature. First, social cognitive career theory (SCCT; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994) posits that career role models serve as contextual supports that have a direct effect on career choice. Specifically, role models may provide vicarious learning experiences that increase the likelihood of choosing a specific career. Indeed, researchers found that students who had observed a successful role model in a specific career field were more likely to report a preference for pursuing that career and to believe that they would be successful in that occupation (Scherer, Brodzinski, & Wiebe, 1991). Additional studies found that exposure to role models through video or written materials increased students' likelihood of considering nontraditional careers (Greene, Sullivan, & Beyard-Tyler, 1982; Savenye, 1992).

The second hypothesis, derived from general social cognitive theory, suggests that role models affect career choice directly and indirectly through their influence on self-efficacy (Bandura, 1999, 2000). In other words, role models provide vicarious learning experiences that increase self-efficacy, thereby increasing interests and choice actions in various educational and career fields. Research has provided some support for this hypothesis by showing a relationship between role model influence and self-efficacy (DeSantis & Quimby, 2004; Nauta et al., 1998). For example, DeSantis and Quimby found that self-efficacy partially mediated the relationship between role model influence and occupational choice, indicating that role models had both indirect and direct effects on career choice.

Although recent research has shown that role models have direct and indirect effects (via self-efficacy) on career choice, the extent to which role models contribute to the prediction of career choice after controlling for self-efficacy is unknown. In addition, no study has examined the influence of role models on women's career choices for Holland's (1997) six RIASEC types. Thus, the purpose of this research was to study the unique contribution of role models on career choice for all six RIASEC types with a sample of college women in the active phase of career decision making. Toward that end, for each RIASEC type, we administered measures of self-efficacy, role model influence, and career choice consideration to college women. Previous research by Lent, Brown, Nota, et al. (2003) used a similar methodology to examine social cognitive interests and choice hypotheses across Holland types. In keeping with SCCT's choice hypotheses (Lent et al., 1994), we predicted that role model influence and self-efficacy would explain significant variance in career choice in all six of Holland's occupational typologies. Additionally, we hypothesized that role model influence would contribute unique variance to the prediction of career choice for all six RIASEC types.

Method

Participants

Participants were 368 female students who ranged in age from 18 to 25 years (M = 19.0, SD = 1.6). Participants were recruited from Introduction to Psychology courses at a Mid-Atlantic university. Eighty-two percent of the participants were White, 8% were African American, 4.7% were Asian American, 1% were biracial, 0.3% were Latino/Hispanic, and 4% indicated their ethnicity as "other." One participant did not respond to the question. The sample was composed of freshmen (64%), sophomores (18%), juniors (11%), and seniors (7%). Most of the participants were enrolled full time (97%) as undergraduate students. The majority of the participants had chosen a major (77%) and indicated that they were certain about their choice (M = 4.0, SD = 1.2; range: 1 = very uncertain to 5 = very certain).

Procedure

Students enrolled in an Introduction to Psychology course were invited to participate in the Career Choice Survey for research credit in partial fulfillment of the required course work. Students were given the choice of participating in several different research projects. Participants logged onto their student research account, selected the Career Choice Survey, read the informed consent form, and completed an online survey. Measures assessed career self-efficacy, role model influence, and career choice consideration for each of the six RIASEC types.

Instruments

Self-efficacy across Holland types. The Skills Confidence Inventory (SCI; Betz, Borgen, & Harmon, 1996) was used to measure occupational self-efficacy. The SCI was designed to measure self-efficacy for each of the six RIASEC types. It was developed from an initial pool of 151 items, which was then reduced to six 10-item scales. Respondents were asked to rate their confidence on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (no confidence at all) to 5 (complete confidence), with high scores indicating greater levels of confidence. An example of an item used to assess confidence in an Artistic type is "Write a novel or autobiography," and an item used to assess confidence in a Conventional type is "Use a spreadsheet program on a computer." Internal consistency reliabilities have ranged from .84 for the Enterprising type to .88 for the Realistic type (Betz & Harmon, 1996). Test-retest reliabilities during a 3-week period ranged from .83 for the Realistic type to .87 for the Social type (Parsons & Betz, 1998).

Role model influence. A revised version of the Influence of Others on Academic and Career Decisions Scale (Nauta & Kokaly, 2001) was used to measure the degree and type of role model influences on career choice. The original scale is composed of two factors that measure support/guidance and inspiration/modeling. For the purpose of this study, only the Inspiration/Modeling subscale was used because previous research indicated that this subscale was more relevant than the Support/Guidance subscale in predicting career interests and choice (Nauta & Kokaly, 2001). The Inspiration/Modeling subscale is composed of seven items and uses a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to evaluate the amount of inspiration and role modeling students perceive from influential others when making career decisions. Participants completed the subscale six times, in relation to each of Holland's (1997) RIASEC types, in order to assess the amount of inspiration and role modeling for each type. In addition, minor revisions were made to the instructions. For instance, in the Realistic occupational typology, the participants were asked to imagine that they wished to enter an occupation that involved manual, mechanical, agricultural, electrical, or technical skills (e.g., electrician or mechanic). The participants then read the prompt "In this academic or career path there is someone I am trying to be like," which was a revision of the original statement, which read "There is someone I am trying to be like in my academic or career pursuits." Internal consistency reliability for the Inspiration/Modeling subscale was reported to be .87 (Nauta, Saucier, & Woodard, 2001). In the current study, the revised Inspiration/Modeling subscale yielded reliability coefficients ranging from .85 to .91 for the six RIASEC types. Validity was supported by positive correlations with measures of general social support, career indecision, career certainty, and occupational information and by a nonsignificant correlation with a measure of social desirability (Nauta & Kokaly, 2001).

Career choice. Occupational choice consideration was measured with Lent, Brown, Nota, et al.'s (2003) adapted version of the Occupational Considerations Scale (Gore & Leuwerke, 2000). Forty-two items (7 items for each of the six RIASEC types) were selected to assess occupational choice for each RIASEC type (Lent, Brown, Nota, et al., 2003). Participants were asked, "For each occupation listed below, please indicate how seriously you would consider it as a possible career for yourself." Responses were scored on a 10-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not very seriously) to 10 (very seriously), with high scores indicating greater consideration of the career. Internal reliability coefficients for the revised Occupational Considerations Scale ranged from .85 for the Realistic and Artistic types to .94 for the Conventional type (Lent, Brown, Nota, et al., 2003).

Demographic data. Participants responded to a demographic form, which included questions about gender, age, ethnicity, major or majors being considered, certainty about choice of academic major, and year in school (freshman, sophomore, etc.).

Results

Descriptive Statistics

The means, standard deviations, ranges, and reliability coefficients for the scales are presented in Table 1. This sample of female college students reported moderate levels of self-efficacy for the six occupational types, ranging from a mean of 2.57 (SD = 0.68) to a mean of 3.61 (SD = 0.67). The sample also had moderate levels of role model influence, ranging from a mean of 2.40 (SD = 1.04) to a mean of 3.52 (SD = 1.02) for all six RIASEC types. Thus, the levels of self-efficacy, role model influence, and career choice consideration differed across RIASEC types (see Table 1). The descriptive findings are consistent with research that suggests a need for mentoring programs to increase female students' aspirations and confidence in nontraditional careers.

Regression Analyses Predicting Career Choice

We conducted six hierarchical multiple regression analyses to investigate the contributions of self-efficacy and role model influence to the prediction of career choice. Separate regressions were run for each of the six RIASEC types. We chose hierarchical regression analyses rather than a multivariate approach, such as structural equation modeling, in order to examine the unique contribution of role models to the prediction of career choice after controlling for self-efficacy. Thus, self-efficacy was entered first in the regression equation because it is hypothesized to mediate the relationship between role model influence and career choice. Moreover, recent research findings showed that self-efficacy partially mediated the relationship between role model influence and career choice (DeSantis & Quimby, 2004).

To control for the possibility of a Type I error, we used a Bonferroni adjustment of the overall alpha level for the six comparisons. Thus, the alpha level was set at less than or equal to .008. Results of the hierarchical multiple regression analyses indicated that self-efficacy and role model influence collectively contributed a significant amount of variance in career choice for all six RIASEC types (p < .0001). Overall, the amount of variance in career choice that was accounted for by self-efficacy and role model influence ranged from 16% for Realistic career types to 39% for Artistic career types (see Table 2). Specifically, with regard to choosing a Realistic career type, the results showed that self-efficacy accounted for 14% of the variance in career choice and role model influence explained an additional 2% of the variance. For an Investigative career type, self-efficacy explained 26% of the variance in career choice and role model influence failed to contribute uniquely to the prediction of career choice. Self-efficacy predicted 37% of the variance in choosing an Artistic career type, and role model influence explained an additional 2% of the variance. For a Social career type, 23% of the variance in career choice was explained by self-efficacy and an additional 4% of the variance was accounted for by role model influence. Self-efficacy explained 26% of the variance in choosing an Enterprising career type, and role model influence contributed an additional 4% of the variance. Finally, for a Conventional career type, 31% of the variance in career choice was explained by self-efficacy and an additional 2% of the variance was accounted for by role model influence. Thus, role model influence was a unique predictor in five of the six career typologies, explaining an additional 2% (p < .001) to 4% (p < .0001) of the variance in career choice after controlling for self-efficacy (see Table 2). Role model influence did not contribute unique variance to the prediction of an Investigative career choice.

Discussion

This study extends the literature regarding the influence of role models on women's career development (e.g., Karunanayake & Nauta, 2004; Nauta et al., 1998), and the results have implications for the practice of career counseling. As hypothesized, self-efficacy and role model influence accounted for significant variance in career choice in all six RIASEC types. Moreover, with the exception of Investigative careers, role model influence added to the prediction of career choice over and above the contribution of self-efficacy. Thus, in addition to the indirect effect of role models on career choice (via self-efficacy), the results also indicate that role models have a small but significant direct influence on career choice. These findings lend support to general social cognitive theory's hypotheses regarding the relationships between role models, self-efficacy, and career choice (Bandura, 1999, 2000). The results also provide partial support for the SCCT hypothesis that role models directly affect career choice. To date, several studies have shown support for the relationship between contextual variables (e.g., supports, barriers, role model influence) and self-efficacy (DeSantis & Quimby, 2004; Lent et al., 2000; Lent, Brown, Schmidt, et al., 2003; Quimby & O'Brien, 2004), which suggests the need to revise the propositions in SCCT and to include a direct path between contextual variables and self-efficacy. Furthermore, additional research is needed to confirm the direct path from contextual variables to career choice.

With the exception of Investigative occupations, our findings support the direct path from role models to career choice. There are several possible explanations for why identification with a role model in an Investigative occupation did not relate directly to career choice. First, the present study did not examine the extent to which the role model was similar to the client. Previous research suggests that role models who are similar with regard to gender and ethnicity may have a greater influence on career development (Karunanayake & Nauta, 2004). The similarity between an individual and the career role model may be especially important for women who are interested in Investigative careers because the underrepresentation of women in nontraditional occupations has been cited as a barrier to women's entry into this field (Basoc & Howe, 1979; Betz, 1994; Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987; Hackett et al., 1989; Nauta et al., 1998). Thus, future research should examine whether identification with role models who are similar in terms of gender or race are more predictive of career choice than role models who are different. Second, additional factors, such as the ability to successfully manage multiple roles, may be considered an important characteristic of inspirational career role models. Indeed, perceived role conflict has been identified as an important variable in predicting women's career aspirations in Investigative careers (Nauta et al., 1998). Future research might assess the influence of career role models who have successfully balanced family and work in nontraditional careers.

These findings have implications for career counseling in college and high school settings. First, career counselors may want to assess whether their female clients identify with role models in different RIASEC career types. The results suggest that role models have a small but significant influence on career choice over and above self-efficacy. Thus, increasing exposure to role models in a variety of professions may assist female students in making career choices. For example, mentoring programs that focus on women's career development could be established in high schools and universities. Incorporating job shadowing and small-group mentoring programs would be a creative way to connect female adolescents with successful women who are engaged in a variety of careers. Moreover, mentoring programs and professional women's groups could encourage young women to consider career-related issues such as multiple-role planning (McCracken & Weitzman, 1997) and role conflict. Many high school girls and college women may feel inspired to pursue a nontraditional occupation after meeting women who successfully manage their career and family responsibilities. Likewise, career counselors could also use the Internet as another way to connect women to inspirational career role models. For example, a database could be created to include successful women who volunteer to correspond with female students about their career-related concerns and aspirations.

The descriptive data suggest that the greatest need for role models is in careers that include nontraditional occupations for women, such as Realistic and Investigative careers. However, the results also show that identification with role models in Investigative careers does not directly influence career choice. Future research that identifies additional positive characteristics of career role models, such as success in coping with educational and career barriers and the ability to manage multiple roles, would aid career counselors in understanding the most influential aspects of role models. We suggest that further research examine the influence of role models on the career development of diverse samples of adolescents and adults.

Because of a few limitations in this study, career counselors are encouraged to replicate this study prior to developing vocational interventions based on the results. First, the correlational design of this study precludes the assumption of a causal relationship between the predictor variables of self-efficacy and role model influence and the criterion variable of career choice. Second, the generalizability of the results may be limited by sampling procedures. It is possible that the students who volunteered to participate in the study were different from those who did not (e.g., those who participated in the study may have been more oriented toward career development). Third, the majority of the participants (77%) had selected a major and indicated that they felt certain about their major. Thus, the results may be different for students who are less certain about their choice of major. Last, the sample was restricted in terms of race and ethnicity, which should be addressed in future research.

Despite the limitations, this study extended the literature by investigating the influence of role models on women's career choices across six RIASEC types. Future studies focused on predicting women's career choices should also examine additional factors such as role conflict and multiple-role self-efficacy. Future research might also study the influence of role models on academic persistence and career goal attainment. Last, additional research focused on developing and assessing the effectiveness of career interventions for college students should attend to the importance of role models.

To conclude, career counselors are in a good position to assess the availability and influence of role models on clients' career choices. It is our hope that research on role models will provide career counselors with the information they need in order to assist women in identifying and achieving their vocational and career goals.

References

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality (2nd ed., pp. 154-196). New York: Guilford Press.

Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75-78.

Basoc, S. A., & Howe, K. G. (1979). Model influence on career choices of college students. The Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 27, 239-245.

Betz, N. E. (1994). Career counseling for women in sciences and engineering. In W. B. Walsh & S. H. Osipow (Eds.), Career counseling for women (pp. 237-261). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Betz, N. E., Borgen, F. H., & Harmon, L. (1996). Skills Confidence Inventory applications and techniques guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Betz, N. E., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1987). The career psychology of women. New York: Academic Press.

Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy expectations to the selection of science-based college majors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 329-345.

Betz, N. E., & Harmon, L. W. (1996). The relationships of self-efficacy for the Holland themes to gender, occupational group membership, and vocational interests. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 90-98.

DeSantis, A. M., & Quimby, J. L. (2004, August). Self-efficacy as a mediator between contextual variables and career choice. Poster session presented at the 113th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Flouri, E., & Buchanan, A. (2002). The role of work-related skills and career role models in adolescent career maturity. The Career Development Quarterly, 52, 36-43.

Gibson, D. E. (2004). Role models in career development: New directions for theory and research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 134-156.

Gilbert, I. A. (1985). Dimensions of same-gender student-faculty role-model relationships. Sex Roles, 12, 111-123.

Gore, P. A., & Leuwerke, W. C. (2000). Predicting occupational considerations: A comparison of self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, and person-environment congruence. Journal of Career Assessment, 8, 237-250.

Greene, A. L., Sullivan, J. J., & Beyard-Tyler, K. (1982). Attitudinal effects of the use of role models in information about sex-typed careers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 393-398.

Hackett, G., & Byars, A. M. (1996). Social cognitive theory and the career development of African American women. The Career Development Quarterly, 44, 322-340.

Hackett, G., Esposito, D., & O'Halloran, M. S. (1989). The relationship of role model influences to the career salience and education and career plans of college women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35, 164-180.

Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Karunanayake, D., & Nauta, M. M. (2004). The relationship between race and students' identified career role models and perceived role model influence. The Career Development Quarterly, 52, 225-234.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79-122.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 36-49.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Nota, L., & Soresi, S. (2003). Testing social cognitive interest and choice hypotheses across Holland types in Italian high school students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 101-118.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B., Lyons, H., & Treistman, D. (2003). Relation of contextual supports and barriers to choice behavior in engineering majors: Test of alternative social cognitive models. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 458-465.

McCracken, R. S., & Weitzman, L. M. (1997). Relationship of personal agency, problem-solving appraisal, and traditionality of career choice to women's attitudes toward multiple role planning. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 149-159.

Nauta, M. M., Epperson, D. L., & Kahn, J. H. (1998). A multiple groups analysis of predictors of career aspirations among women in science and engineering. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 483-496.

Nauta, M. M., & Kokaly, M. L. (2001). Assessing role model influence on students' academic and vocational decisions. Journal of Career Assessment, 9, 81-99.

Nauta, M. M., Saucier, A. M., & Woodard, L. E. (2001). Interpersonal influences on students' academic and career decisions: The impact of sexual orientation. The Career Development Quarterly, 49, 352-362.

Parsons, E., & Betz, N. E. (1998). Test-retest reliability and validity studies of the Skills Confidence Inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 6, 1-12.

Perrone, K. M., Zanardelli, G., Worthington, E. L., & Chartrand, J. M. (2002). Role model influence on the career decidedness of college students. College Student Journal, 36, 109-113.

Quimby, J. L., & O'Brien, K. M. (2004). Predictors of student and career decision-making self-efficacy among nontraditional college women. The Career Development Quarterly, 52, 323-339.

Savenye, W. (1992). Role models and student attitudes toward nontraditional careers. Educational Technology Research & Development, 38, 5-13.

Scherer, R. F., Brodzinski, J. D., & Wiebe, F. A. (1991). Assessing perception of career role-model performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 555-560.

Smith, W., & Erb, T. O. (1986). Effect of women science career role models on early adolescents' attitudes toward scientists and women in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 8, 667-676.

Julie L. Quimby and Angela M. DeSantis, Department of Psychology, Towson University. Angela M. DeSantis is now at the Veterans Administration Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Julie L. Quimby, Department of Psychology, Towson University, 8000 York Road, Towson, MD 21252 (e-mail: [e-mail]).

TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics for Role Model Influence, Self-Efficacy,
and Career Choice Consideration, by Holland Type

Career Type                        M     SD    Range  Reliability

Realistic
  Role model influence (a)         2.56  1.02  1-5    .85
  Self-efficacy (b)                2.57  0.68  1-5    .81
  Career choice consideration (c)  1.74  0.93  1-10   .80
Investigative
  Role model influence (a)         3.13  1.06  1-5    .87
  Self-efficacy (b)                2.66  0.68  1-5    .81
  Career choice consideration (c)  2.80  1.72  1-10   .89
Artistic
  Role model influence (a)         3.18  1.14  1-5    .90
  Self-efficacy (b)                3.10  0.83  1-5    .86
  Career choice consideration (c)  3.82  2.07  1-10   .86
Social
  Role model influence (a)         3.52  1.02  1-5    .88
  Self-efficacy (b)                3.61  0.67  1-5    .85
  Career choice consideration (c)  4.82  2.04  1-10   .84
Enterprising
  Role model influence (a)         2.87  1.15  1-5    .91
  Self-efficacy (b)                3.09  0.73  1-5    .85
  Career choice consideration (c)  4.20  2.37  1-10   .93
Conventional
  Role model influence (a)         2.40  1.04  1-5    .89
  Self-efficacy (b)                2.77  0.77  1-5    .86
  Career choice consideration (c)  2.66  1.94  1-10   .94

(a) Measured using the Inspiration/Modeling subscale of the Influence of
Others on Academic and Career Decisions. (b) Measured using the Skills
Confidence Inventory. (c) Measured using an adapted version of the
Occupational Considerations Scale.

TABLE 2 Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting
Career Choice for Six Holland Career Types

                                                              [DELTA]
Career Type and Step            Final [beta]  R    [R.sup.2]  [R.sup.2]

Realistic (a)
  Step 1: Self-efficacy         0.34**        .38  .14        .14
  Step 2: Role model influence  0.15*         .40  .16        .02
Investigative (b)
  Step 1: Self-efficacy         0.48**        .51  .26        .26
  Step 2: Role model influence  0.10          .52  .27        .01
Artistic (c)
  Step 1: Self-efficacy         0.55**        .61  .37        .37
  Step 2: Role model influence  0.14*         .62  .39        .02
Social (d)
  Step 1: Self-efficacy         0.45**        .48  .23        .23
  Step 2: Role model influence  0.19**        .52  .27        .04
Enterprising (e)
  Step 1: Self-efficacy         0.45**        .51  .26        .26
  Step 2: Role model influence  0.20**        .55  .30        .04
Conventional (f)
  Step 1: Self-efficacy         0.54**        .56  .31        .31
  Step 2: Role model influence  0.15*         .58  .33        .02

Note. N = 368. Self-efficacy and role model influence were the predictor
variables used in the analyses.
(a) Overall model, F(2, 365) = 33.11, p < .0001. (b) Overall model,
F(2, 365) = 62.68, p < .0001. (c) Overall model, F(2, 365) = 105.70,
p < .0001. (d) Overall model, F(2, 365) = 61.49, p < .0001. (e) Overall
model, F(2, 365) = 72.41, p < .0001. (f) Overall model, F(2, 365) =
84.79, p < .0001.
*p < .001. **p < .0001.