Anda di halaman 1dari 13

Article

Journal of Career Development


1-13
Curators of the University
The Influence of Family of Origin of Missouri 2016
Reprints and permission:
Relationships on Career Thoughts sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0894845316633791
jcd.sagepub.com

Daniel C. Lustig1, Yonghong Jade Xu1, and David R. Strauser2

Abstract
Family of origin relationships are an important influence on career decision-making. The current study
investigates the relationship between family cohesion, expressiveness and conflict and dysfunctional
career thoughts. The Family Environment Scale - Form R (Moos & Moos, 2009) measured the family
environment and the Career Thoughts Inventory (Sampson, Peterson, Lenz, Reardon, & Saunders,
1996) measured dysfunctional career thoughts. Participants were undergraduate students at a large
Southern University. The results found that higher levels of family conflict and lower levels of family
expressiveness were associated with higher levels of decision-making confusion, commitment anxiety,
and external conflict. Implications for career counselors are discussed.

Keywords
undergraduates/early adults, sample populations, career decision-making, career commitment,
research content areas

Career theorists and researchers have long argued that the family is an important influence on career
decision-making (Brachter, 1982; Gottfredson, 1981; Roe, 1956; Schulenberg, Vondracek, & Crouter,
1984; Super, 1980; Whiston & Keller, 2004b). For example, Gottfredson (1981) posited that the family
directs and limits the range of acceptable occupational alternatives for its family members. Duffy and
Dik (2009) viewed the family as one set of external influences on the career development process.
Similarly, Sampson, Reardon, Peterson, and Lenz (2004) referred to the influence of family as one
contextual factor influencing the career decision-making process. Blustein (2001, 2004, 2006) and oth-
ers (Lopez & Andrews, 1987; Schultheiss, 2003, 2006) described the impact of relationships between
family members as critical in a wide variety of career-related decisions. While there is a growing body
of evidence supporting the impact of a number of family variables such as enmeshment, parental sup-
port, and attachment (e.g., Guerra & Baumgart-Rieker, 1999; Nota, Ferrari, Solberg, & Soresi, 2007;
Wolfe & Betz, 2004) and other studies have investigated the impact of family cohesion, expressive-
ness, and conflict (e.g., Johnson, Buboltz, & Nichols, 1999; Shin & Kelly, 2013), few studies have

1
College of Education, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA
2
Work and Disability Lab, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, Champaign, IL, USA

Corresponding Author:
Daniel C. Lustig, College of Education, University of Memphis, 113 Patterson Hall, Memphis, TN 38152, USA.
Email: dlustig@memphis.edu

Downloaded from jcd.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on April 19, 2016


2 Journal of Career Development

focused on the impact of family of origin relationships, specifically cohesion, conflict, and expressive-
ness on dysfunctional career thoughts (Dodge, 2001; Smith, 2011; Whiston & Keller, 2004b).
Historically, research related to family and career development has focused primarily on important
proximal relationships such as family, friend, peer, and school relationships (Kenny & Medvide,
2013). Considering the extant theory and research (Blustein, 2001, 2004, 2006; Duffy & Dik, 2009)
as well as time spent with ones family of origin, it is a reasonable assumption that family of origin
relationships influences the development of a number of important career tasks encountered by young
adults. These developmental career tasks also emerge within the context of the family life cycle. The
influence of the family of origin on the ability of its members to accomplish life tasks is important
throughout the individuals life but is particularly important, as they move into adulthood and make
decisions about careers (McGoldrick & Shibusawa, 2012). Within a family life cycle perspective, the
primary task for a young adult in college is to negotiate their relationship with their family as they enter
the adult world of work and relationships. The ability of the individual to balance dependence with
independence and move forward with respect to work and career are influenced by the nature of the
relationship dynamics of their family of origin.
To date, the research conducted addressing the relationship between family and career development
has been focused in two primary areas. One line of familial career development inquiry has focused on
the relationship of parental attachment, support, family enmeshment, and parental encouragement of
independence on important career development tasks and primarily career self-efficacy (Alliman-
Brissett, Turner, & Skovolt, 2004; Guay, Senecal, Gauthier, & Fernet, 2003; Guerra & Braungart-
Rieker, 1999; Kinnier, Brigman, & Noble, 1990; Nota et al., 2007; OBrien, Friedman, Tipton, & Linn,
2000; Wolfe & Betz, 2004). Research has consistently found that parental attachment, positive sup-
port, and parents supporting autonomy are significantly related to higher levels of career decision-
making self-efficacy (Wolfe & Betz, 2004). A second line of inquiry has focused on the influence
of family cohesion, expressiveness, and conflict on career development constructs. To date, studies
have found that a high degree of family cohesiveness, expressiveness, and low family conflict had
a positive effect on career optimism, motivation, and vocational identity (Johnson et al., 1999; Shin
& Kelly, 2013; Penick, 1992). In terms of parental gender, research has found that when mothers per-
ceive lower levels of family conflict and fathers perceive higher levels of family expression, children
reported higher levels of vocational identity. Research has provided evidence of a relationship between
the students perception of lower family conflict and higher levels of expressiveness and higher levels
of vocational identity, career decision-making self-efficacy, and career planning attitudes (Hargrove,
Creagh, & Burgess, 2002; Hargove, Inman, & Crane, 2005). Finally, Smith (2011) and Dodge (2001),
in studies of college students, found that higher levels of family conflict were associated with higher
levels of dysfunctional career thoughts, conceptualized as decision-making confusion, commitment
anxiety, and external conflict (Sampson, Reardon, Peterson, & Lenz, 2004).
Based on the research conducted to date, there is sufficient evidence to support the individuals fam-
ily of origin as a major contextual factor that influences the career development constructs of career
self-efficacy, vocational identity, and career planning. However, there is a noticeable lack of
career research examining how the individuals interaction with the family of origin impacts ones
career cognition. Research has consistently identified the career development process as cognitively
and affectively mediated and that these cognitive processes and affect are the foundation for the con-
structs of career self-efficacy, vocational identity, and effective career planning (Strauser, 2014).
Research into family interaction and career cognition would provide much needed insight on how the
quality and strength of the family relationship impact the development of career cognitions. Research
in this area would potentially provide valuable knowledge that goes beyond the contextual influences
of family to a more profound understanding of how the family influences ones affect and cognitive
processes related to career decision-making, the formation of career values and interests, and cognitive
conceptualization of the broader educational and employment environment. However, before research

Downloaded from jcd.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on April 19, 2016


Lustig et al. 3

can be conducted to address these complex issues, there is a need for research addressing the basic
relationship between family of origin interactions and career cognition and affect.
One career theory that explicitly considers family contextual factors is Cognitive Information Pro-
cessing (CIP; Sampson et al., 2004). CIP theory focuses on the individuals capability to make effec-
tive career decisions and the complexity of the individuals external situation. Complexity considers
family contextual influences, as well as other influences such as broad economic trends, that affect an
individuals ability to make effective career decision. A relational understanding of career decision-
making posits that interpersonal relationships within the family assist in the development of behaviors
that can either inhibit or support functional career decision-making. Within the context of career infor-
mation processing, career thoughts are hypothesized as cognitions ranging from functional to dysfunc-
tional (Sampson, Peterson, Lenz, Reardon, & Saunders, 1996). These career thoughts are developed
through a combination of the individuals vocational cognitions and behaviors and contextual factors,
including the family. Individuals may verbalize negative or dysfunctional career thoughts that can
make career decision-making problematic. The development of the CIP approach posits that individ-
uals have dysfunctional career thoughts related to (a) initiating or maintaining the career decision-
making process because of affective barriers and difficulty in understanding how to make a decision,
(b) committing to a career choice because of the anxiety about potential outcomes, and (c) problems
effectively integrating the opinions of others with regard to their career decision. These three types of
dysfunctional career thoughts were termed decision-making confusion, commitment anxiety, and
external conflict (Sampson et al., 1996, 2004).
The purpose of the current study is to investigate the relationship between family of origin relation-
ships and dysfunctional career thoughts. The current study posits that family of origin relationship
dynamics, an important contextual factor, influences an individuals ability to cognitively and affec-
tively process career information therefore impacting the ability to initiate the career decision-making
process, commit to a career choice, and effectively integrate the career influences of others. It is
hypothesized that lower levels of family cohesion and expressiveness and higher levels of family con-
flict would result in higher levels of dysfunctional career thoughts. The study considers the following
research question: What is the impact of family cohesion, family expressiveness, and family conflict in
the participants family of origin on dysfunctional career thoughts, specifically decision-making con-
fusion, commitment anxiety, and external conflict?

Method
Participants
The participants for this study were 141 college students at a large public University in the South.
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 60 (M 22.5, SD 6.8). A majority of participants were
female (81%; n 114), single (89%; n 125) with no children (84%; n 118), and either African
American (47%; n 67) or Caucasian (45%; n 63). The most common educational attainment
was completion of a high school diploma (75%; n 105). Approximately 36% of the participants
had incomes up to US$29,999 (n 51), 27% of participants had incomes between US$30,000 and
US$59,999 (n 38), 32% with incomes of US$60,000 or above (n 45), and 5% not reporting
income (n 7; see Table 1).
Participants reported demographic information about their family of origin. Participants were asked
to provide information about the house they grew up in. Participants reported that 83% lived with their
mother (n 117), 59% lived with their father (n 83), 48% lived with a brother (n 68), and 43%
lived with a sister (n 60). The most common educational attainment for mothers (40%; n 57) and
fathers (40%; n 57) was a high school diploma. Approximately 20% of the participants had family of
origin incomes up to US$29,999 (n 28), 38% of participants had incomes between US$30,000 and

Downloaded from jcd.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on April 19, 2016


4 Journal of Career Development

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics.

Participant
Age
1822 77 (n 108)
2330 15 (n 21)
>30 8 (n 12)
Gender (%)female 81 (n 114)
Ethnicity (%)
African American 47 (n 67)
Caucasian 45 (n 63)
Hispanic 4 (n 5)
Asian/Pacific Islander 1 (n 2)
Other 3 (n 4)
Education (%)
High school diploma 75 (n 105)
Junior college 13 (n 9)
Bachelors 11 (n 16)
Unidentified 1 (n 1)
No. of children
0 84 (n 118)
1 or 2 14 (n 20)
3 or 4 2 (n 3)
Marital status (%)
Single 89 (n 125)
Married 7 (n 10)
Separated/divorced/widowed 3 (n 5)
Unidentified 1 (n 1)
Income
<US$29,000 36 (n 51)
US$30,000$59,999 27 (n 38)
US>$60,000 32 (n 45)
Not reporting 5 (n 7)
Family of origin
Percentage lived with
Mother 83 (n 117)
Father 59 (n 83)
Brother 48 (n 68)
Sister 43 (n 60)
Education (%)mother
< High school diploma 9 (n 21)
High school diploma 40 (n 57)
Junior college 17 (n 24)
Bachelors/graduate 34 (n 48)
Education father
<High school diploma 14 (n 20)
High school diploma 40 (n 57)
Junior college 13 (n 18)
Bachelors/graduate 34 (n 48)
Not reporting 2 (n 2)
Income
<US$29,000 20 (n 28)
US$30,000$59,999 38 (n 54)
US>$60,000 37 (n 52)
Not reporting 5 (n 7)
Note. N 141.

Downloaded from jcd.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on April 19, 2016


Lustig et al. 5

US$59,999 (n 54), 37% with incomes of US$60,000 or above (n 52), and 5% not reporting income
(n 7; see Table 1).

Instruments
Career Thoughts Inventory (CFI). The CTI (Sampson et al., 1996) is based on the CIP theoretical approach
to career development and career services (Sampson et al., 2004) and a cognitive therapy approach to
mental health and mental health services (Beck, 1976; Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emory, 1979). For the
purposes of the instrument, career thoughts are defined as outcomes of ones thinking about assump-
tions, attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, feelings, plans, and/or strategies related to career problem solving
and decision-making. The CTI consists of 48 items and produces three construct scales: (a) the
Decision-Making Confusion Scale measures the extent to which an individuals emotions or lack of
decision-making skill knowledge interferes with his or her ability to make a career decision; (b) the
Commitment Anxiety Scale measures the impact anxiety has on a persons ability to commit to a
career decision, and (c) the External Conflict Scale measures how well the person utilizes input from
others and his or her self-perception in decision-making. Respondents use a 4-point rating scale with
responses ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly agree). Examples of items are (a) no field
of study or occupation interests me at this time (Decision-Making Confusion), (b) the views of impor-
tant people in my life interfere with choosing a field of study or occupation (External Conflict), and (c)
Im afraid of overlooking an occupation (Commitment Anxiety). Subscale scores were derived by
summing the items. Higher scores indicate greater level of the construct. Evidence of the validity of
the CTI is provided by Sampson, Peterson, Lenz, Reardon, and Saunders (1996). Principle components
analysis provided support for three factors, specifically, Decision-Making Confusion, Commitment
Anxiety, and External Conflict. Correlations between the three scales of the CTI and measures of sim-
ilar constructs (i.e., My Vocational Situation, Career Decision Scale, and Career Decision Profile) pro-
vide support for the convergent validity of the CTI. Finally, the CTI scores were significantly different
between college students seeking career services and students not seeking career services, providing
evidence of the criterion-related validity of the CTI. Internal consistency reliability coefficients have
been reported between .90 and .94 for Decision-Making Confusion, .79 and .91 for Commitment Anxi-
ety, and .74 and .81 for External Conflict. In this study, an internal consistency estimates of .95 for
Decision-Making Confusion, .90 for Commitment Anxiety, and .81 for External Conflict were found.

Family Environment ScaleForm R (FES-R). The FES-R (Moos & Moos, 2009) is a 90-item self-report
questionnaire used to assess a family members perception of the social climate of the participants
family of origin along three dimensions, specifically, relationships, personal growth, and system main-
tenance. The Relationship dimension measures the level of cohesion, expressiveness, and conflict
within the family, the Personal growth dimension measures the manner in which the family encourages
personal growth, and the System Maintenance dimension measures level of structure and rule making
within the family. For the purposes of the current study, the Relationship dimension subscales were
used. The Relationship dimension consists of three subscales: (a) cohesion measures the degree of
commitment, help, and support provided by family members; (b) expressiveness measures the extent
to which family members are encouraged to express their feelings; (c) conflict measures the amount of
openly expressed anger and conflict among family members. Each subscale consists of 10 statements
to which the respondent indicates they either agree (true) or disagree (false) to the statement. Sub-
scale scores range from 0 to 9. Higher scores indicate a higher level of the subscale construct as per-
ceived by the respondents family of origin. Examples of statements are (a) family members really
help and support one another (Cohesiveness), (b) we fight a lot in our family (Expressiveness),
(c) we feel it I important to be the best at whatever you do (Conflict). Internal consistency reliability
has been reported for Cohesiveness (.78), Expressiveness (.69), and Conflict (.75). Research also

Downloaded from jcd.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on April 19, 2016


6 Journal of Career Development

provides evidence of adequate convergent and discriminant validity (Moos & Moos, 2009). In this
study, internal consistency estimates of .79 for Cohesiveness, .56 for Expressiveness, and .78 for
Conflict were found.

Demographics form. The demographic form asked the participant to supply the following information
on their age, gender, ethnicity, education, income, and number of children and information concerning
their family of origin, specifically, who lived in the house they grew up in, father and mother educa-
tion, family income, and the last year the participant lived in the family of origin house.

Procedures
Faculty in the College of Education at a Southern urban university agreed to distribute survey pack-
ets. The survey was one of several options that students had for completing part of their course
requirements. Of the 220 distributed to faculty, 153 students agreed to complete the survey.
Research packets distributed to the students contained a demographic form developed for this study,
the two test instruments and an informed consent form. Participants were informed that their partic-
ipation was voluntary, that all the data collected would be confidential, and that they were free to
withdraw at any time without penalty. Participants completed and returned it to their course instruc-
tor. Completed and unused test packets were returned to the principle investigator for data entry.
Twelve respondents had incomplete data and were dropped from the sample reducing the total num-
ber of participants from 153 to 141.

Data Analysis
First, a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was run to examine whether dysfunctional
career thoughts differed by demographic factors including gender, age, parents education, and family
income. Among them, parents education was taken as the average of the fathers and mothers edu-
cation levels. If any of the variables were significantly different, they would be included in the multiple
regression models in the subsequent analysis. During the second step, multiple regression was used to
examine the impact of family relationships on dysfunctional career thoughts of college students, mea-
sured by decision-making confusion, commitment anxiety, and external conflict. Four regression mod-
els were constructed; all shared the same three independent measures of family relationships, including
family cohesion, family expressiveness, and family conflict. The dependent variables of the Models
13 are the three subscales of the CTI: Decision-Making Confusion, Commitment Anxiety, and Exter-
nal Conflict, respectively. Given the relatively small sample size, the level of significance was set at
.10 when examining the model significance and the regression coefficients. Effect sizes were indicated
by the values of the model R2.

Results
Tables 2 and 3 present the bivariate correlations and descriptive information of the variables,
respectively. Information in Table 2 indicates that demographic characteristics have very weak
associations with measures of dysfunctional career thoughts. In contrast, moderate correlations are
observed between measures of family relationships and dysfunctional career thoughts. Given the
relatively strong correlations among decision-making confusion, commitment anxiety, and external
conflict, a MANCOVA was run to verify statistically whether college students dysfunctional
career thoughts are a function of their demographic characteristics. The multivariate results showed
that all tests failed to reach statistical significance at a .10 level. In Table 4, univariate F tests
from the MANCOVA output are provided to show that students age, gender, family income, and

Downloaded from jcd.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on April 19, 2016


Lustig et al. 7

Table 2. Bivariate Correlations Between Variables.

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Gender
2. Family income .09
3. Parents education .03 .29***
4. Age .08 .02 0.15
5. Expressiveness .13 .01 .09 .05
6. Cohesion .14 .07 .04 .01 .56***
7. Conflict .14 .05 .12 .05 .36*** .64***
8. Decision-making confusion .03 .08 .05 .04 .31*** .36*** .35***
9. Commitment anxiety .15 .08 .04 .09 .28*** .28*** .38*** .81***
10. External conflict .08 .10 .10 .13 .35*** .32*** .37*** .71*** .69***
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 3. Descriptive Information of the Independent and Dependent Variables.

Mean SD Skewness Minimum Maximum

Age 22.53 6.78 3.27 18 60


Family income 6.13 3.06 0.27 1 11
Parents education 2.81 0.96 0.21 1 5
Expressiveness 5.31 2.03 0.34 0 9
Cohesion 6.43 2.42 1.06 0 9
Conflict 3.21 2.48 0.68 0 9
Decision-making confusion 22.81 8.15 0.67 14 47
Commitment anxiety 21.13 6.70 0.09 10 37
External conflict 9.48 3.48 0.43 5 18
Note. Gender (Female 1; Male 2) is also one of the controlled variables in the regression models. Females account for 81% of
the sample (n 141).

Table 4. MANCOVA Tests of Relationships Between Demographic Factors and Dysfunctional Career Thoughts.

Source Dependent Variable SS df MS F p

Family income Decision-making confusion 57.45 1 57.45 1.30 .26


Commitment anxiety 14.13 1 14.13 1.17 .28
External conflict 55.96 1 55.96 0.81 .37
Age Decision-making confusion 56.49 1 56.49 1.28 .26
Commitment anxiety 18.64 1 18.64 1.54 .22
External conflict 9.50 1 9.50 0.14 .71
Parents education Decision-making confusion 1.22 1 1.22 0.03 .87
Commitment anxiety 5.28 1 5.28 0.44 .51
External conflict 8.50 1 8.50 0.12 .73
Gender Decision-making confusion 115.97 1 115.97 2.62 .11
Commitment anxiety 6.24 1 6.24 0.51 .47
External conflict 3.24 1 3.24 0.05 .83
Error Decision-making confusion 5,665.84 128 44.26
Commitment anxiety 1,550.77 128 12.12
External conflict 8,790.76 128 68.68
Total Decision-making confusion 5,896.99 132
Commitment anxiety 1,607.20 132
External conflict 8,890.29 132
Note. MANCOVA multivariate analysis of covariance; SS Sum of Square; MS Mean Square.

Downloaded from jcd.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on April 19, 2016


8 Journal of Career Development

Table 5. Summary Information of the Three Regression Models.

Dependent Variable (Model R2) Independent Variables b t (p) b

Decision-making confusion (R2 .17) Expressiveness .64 1.71 (.09) .16


Cohesion .49 1.31 (.19) .15
Conflict .66 1.99 (.05) .20
Commitment anxiety (R2 .17) Expressiveness .58 1.89 (.01) .18
Cohesion .06 0.20 (.84) .02
Conflict .88 3.22 (.002) .33
External conflict (R2 .19) Expressiveness .43 2.685 (.008) .25
Cohesion .02 0.14 (.89) .02
Conflict .38 2.70 (.008) .27

Note. The regression constant of the three models are 27.3, 21.0, and 10.

parents education did not contribute significantly to the variances of the four measures of dysfunc-
tional career thoughts.
As such, regression analysis was conducted excluding the four demographic variables. Note
that the mean, standard deviation, and skewness values in Table 3 suggest that some of the
variables depart from a normal distribution. Nonetheless, close examination of the regression resi-
duals do not suggest significant violations of the underlying assumptions of normality, linearity,
and homoscedasticity. All four regression models were free of multicollinearity, given that all
variance inflation factors are lower than 5. Details of the four regression models are presented
in Table 5.

Decision-Making Confusion (Model 1)


Together, family expressiveness, family cohesion, and family conflict explain approximately 17%
(R2 .174, p < .001) of the total variance in college students career-related decision-making con-
fusion. Of the three independent variables, increased family conflict was significantly associated
with elevated decision-making confusion. Expressiveness was also statistically significant with a
regression coefficient b 0.64, which has p .09.

Commitment Anxiety (Model 2)


Close to 17% (R2 .166, p < .001) of the total variance in commitment anxiety is attributable to family
expressiveness, family cohesion, and family conflict. Similar to Model 1, family conflict was the most
significant predictor and students who reported a greater level of family conflict tended to indicate
higher levels of commitment anxiety (b 0.882, p .002). Expressiveness (b 0.585, p .061) was
also statistically significant.

External Conflict (Model 3)


Roughly 19% (R2 .191, p < .001) of the total variance in external conflict can be explained by the
linear combination of family expressiveness, family cohesion, and family conflict. An open and
expressive family environment (b 0.452, p .008) is related to a decreased level of external con-
flict reported by college students, whereas a higher sense of family conflict leads to an increased sense
of external conflict (b 0.378, p .008).

Downloaded from jcd.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on April 19, 2016


Lustig et al. 9

Discussion
This study focused on the impact of family cohesion, family expressiveness, and family conflict on
dysfunctional career thoughts, specifically, decision-making confusion, commitment anxiety, and
external conflict. It was hypothesized that lower levels of family cohesion and expressiveness and
higher levels of family conflict would result in higher levels of dysfunctional career thoughts. First,
the results found that higher levels of family conflict were associated with higher levels of
decision-making confusion, commitment anxiety, and external conflict. Second, lower levels of family
expressiveness were also associated with higher levels of decision-making confusion, commitment
anxiety, and external conflict. Thus, the hypothesized relationship between family expressiveness and
family conflict and dysfunctional career thoughts was supported while the relationship between family
cohesion and dysfunctional career thoughts was not.
Prior to discussing the results, the limitations of the study are noted. Conclusions about the results
are limited by the following considerations. First, the internal consistency estimate for the Expres-
siveness subscale of the Family Assessment Device was .56, lower than the reported internal con-
sistency of .69 (Moos & Moos, 2009), raising questions about the subscale as a unidimensional
construct in the current study. Second, this study utilized an ex post facto design. A limitation of
ex post facto designs is the difficulty determining a causal link between variables. Third, since the
study utilized a convenience sample, it is unclear if there would have been a difference between
respondents and nonrespondents with respect to the study variables. Finally, participants were asked
to respond to the family instrument by describing their family of origin. The average length of time
since the participants had lived with their family of origin was 5 years with about half of the parti-
cipants having lived with their family of origin 2 years before completion of the study. It is possible
that the length of time since some participants had lived with their family of origin reduced the accu-
racy of their perceptions of family relationships.
The current studys results are supported by the extant literature that found that higher levels of fam-
ily conflict were associated with higher levels of dysfunctional career thoughts, conceptualized as
decision-making confusion, commitment anxiety, and external conflict (Dodge, 2001; Smith, 2011).
While Dodge (2001) and Smith (2011) did not find a relationship between family expressiveness and
dysfunctional career thoughts, the current study found low levels of family expressiveness were asso-
ciated with high levels of dysfunctional career thoughts.
It is unclear why the current study failed to find a relationship between family cohesion and dys-
functional career thoughts. While the concept of family conflict (the amount of openly expressed
anger and conflict among family members) and family expressiveness (the extent to which family
members are encouraged to express their feelings) focus on communication within the family, fam-
ily cohesion measures the degree of commitment, help, and support provided by family members.
One possible explanation is that although the nature of the communication within the family is
important with respect to impacting the students career thoughts, the degree of commitment, help,
and support are not.
The study provides support for two assertions. First, in the individuals family of origin, high
levels of family conflict were associated with individuals whose emotions or lack of decision-
making skill knowledge interfered with their ability to make a career decision (decision-making
confusion), who experienced anxiety concerning committing to a career decision (commitment
anxiety), and who had difficulty incorporating the influence of others (e.g., family members) in
their career decisions (external conflict). Individuals who have decision-making confusion and
commitment anxiety are unwilling and unmotivated to think about career options, are unconfident
about their ability to make and implement a career decision, and have difficulty taking responsibil-
ity for their career problem solving tasks (Sampson et al., 2004). Individuals with external conflict
have difficulty making an effective career decision while considering the influence of others in the

Downloaded from jcd.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on April 19, 2016


10 Journal of Career Development

career decision-making process. Growing up in a family where conflict is common and family
members openly express anger appears to increase the chances that an individual engages in neg-
ative career thoughts and disrupts the ability to engage in a rational career problem solving and
decision-making process.
Second, in the individuals family of origin, low levels of family expressiveness were associ-
ated with individuals whose emotions or lack of decision-making skill knowledge interfered with
their ability to make a career decision (decision-making confusion), who experienced anxiety
concerning committing to a career decision (commitment anxiety), and who had difficulty incor-
porating the influence of others (e.g., family members) in their career decisions (external con-
flict). Within the CIP approach, external conflict is related to the contextual factors that either
increase or decrease the complexity of the career decision-making process. If the individual grew
up in a family where openly expressing ones feelings was not encouraged, then the current study
provides support for the assertion that it would be difficult for the son or daughter to effectively
negotiate instances where a parent is suggesting or insisting that they pursue a particular career
path.
The practical implications of the results suggest two key focuses for the career counselor.
A career counselor should consider discussing the nature of the students family relationships to
determine whether family of origin relationships impacts the current career decision-making
concerns. First, the career counselor should focus on whether the individuals family of origin
encouraged open expressions of feelings and whether family members openly expressed anger
toward each other. For students who grew up in families where open conflict was prevalent
and/or family members were not encouraged to express their feelings, counselors may consider dis-
cussing the potential relationship between these family dynamics and the clients current problems
related to career decision-making. Second, the career counselor should consider the effect of the
students family relationships on the nature of the working alliance between counselor and client
(Bordin, 1979, 1994). To the extent that the student grew up in a family where open expression of
feelings was not encouraged, they may have difficulty expressing their feelings to their counselor
about career decision-making problems. In order for the counselor to effectively address dysfunc-
tional career thoughts, the student must be willing to openly discuss career and personal issues
(Ecke, 2007).
The current study provides support for the relationship between family of origin dynamics and
dysfunctional career thoughts. The results provide an important first step in understanding the rela-
tionship of family of origin relationships as one contextual influence on career decision-making. The
study adds to the growing literature investigating career decision-making from a CIP perspective and
provides preliminary support for counselors exploring family of origin dynamics as a relevant frame-
work for understanding the clients current problems-making career decisions.
Additional research is needed in the following areas. First, the current study focuses on college stu-
dents who are in the process of negotiating the nature of their independence from their family of origin.
A longitudinal study focusing on the transition from adolescence to young adulthood with regard to the
process of an individual working through career decision-making tasks would be informative. A long-
itudinal study could assist in determining whether the relationship between family of origin dynamics
and career thoughts holds up over time (e.g., during a midlife career change). Second, while the current
study did not find socioeconomic factors significant in the relationship between family of origin rela-
tionships and dysfunctional career thoughts, other researchers have commented on the importance of
income and education (Heppner & Scott, 2004; Whiston & Keller, 2004a). Research including a spe-
cific measure of socioeconomic levels would assist in measuring the impact of socioeconomic factors.
Finally, since the extant literature focusing on the same measures and sample is limited (i.e., Dodge,
2001; Smith, 2011), the study should be replicated. Replication of the current study would assist in
determining whether the results are consistent across studies.

Downloaded from jcd.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on April 19, 2016


Lustig et al. 11

Declaration of Conflicting Interests


The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

References
Alliman-Brissett, A., Turner, S., & Skovolt, T. (2004). Parent support and African American adolescents career
self-efficacy. Professional School Counseling, 7, 124132.
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and emotional disorders. New York, NY: International Universities Press.
Beck, A. T., Rush, A., Shaw, B., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Blustein, D. (2001). The interface of work and relationships: Critical knowledge for 21st century psychology. The
Counseling Psychologist, 29, 179192. doi:10.1177/001100000129001
Blustein, D. (2004). Moving from the inside out: Further explorations of the family of origin/career development
linkage. The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 603611. doi:10.1177/0011000004265962
Blustein, D. (2006). The psychology of working: A new perspective for career development and public policy.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bordin, E. (1994). Theory and research on the therapeutic working alliance: New directions. In A. Horvath & L.
Greenberg (Eds.), The working alliance: Theory, research and practice (pp. 1337). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Bordin, E. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy:
Theory, Research and Practice, 16, 252260.
Brachter, W. (1982). The influence of the family on career selection: A family systems perspective. Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 61, 8791.
Dodge, T. (2001). An investigation of the relationship between the family of origin and selected career develop-
ment outcomes (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest (UMI No. 3003081).
Duffy, R., & Dik, B. (2009). Beyond the self: External influences in the career development process. Career
Development Quarterly, 58, 2943.
Ecke, Y. (2007). Attachment style and dysfunctional career thoughts: How attachment style can affect the career
counseling process. Career Development Quarterly, 55, 339350.
Gottfredson, L. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory of occupational preferences.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 545579.
Guay, F., Senecal, C., Gauthier, L., & Fernet, C. (2003). Predicting career indecision: A self-determination theory
perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 165177. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.50.2
Guerra, A., & Braungart-Rieker, J. (1999). Predicting career indecision in college students: The roles of identity
formation and parental relationship factors. Career Development Quarterly, 47, 255266.
Hargrove, B., Creagh, M., & Burgess, B. (2002). Family interaction patterns as predictors of vocational identity
and career decision-making efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 185201. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.
1848
Hargove, B., Inman, A., & Crane, R. (2005). Family interaction patterns, career planning attitudes, and vocational
identity of high school adolescents. Journal of Career Development, 31, 263278. doi:10.1007/s10871-005-
4740-1
Heppner, M., & Scott, A. (2004). From whence we came: The role of social class in our families of origin. The
Counseling Psychologist, 32, 596602. doi:10.1177/001 1000004265670
Johnson, P., Buboltz, W., & Nichols, C. (1999). Parental divorce, family functioning, and vocational identity of
college students. Journal of Career Development, 26, 137146.

Downloaded from jcd.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on April 19, 2016


12 Journal of Career Development

Kenny, M., & Medvide, M. (2013). Relational influences on career development. In S. Brown & R. Lent (Eds.),
Career development and counseling (pp. 329356). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kinnier, R., Brigman, L., & Noble, F. (1990). Career indecision and family enmeshment. Journal of Counseling
and Development, 68, 309312.
Lopez, F., & Andrews, S. (1987). Career indecision: Family systems perspective. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 65, 304307.
McGoldrick, M., & Shibusawa, T. (2012). The family life cycle. In F. Walsh (Eds.), Normal family processes:
Growing diversity and complexity (4th ed., pp. 375398). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Moos, R., & Moos, B. (2009). Family environment scale manual and sampler set: Development, applications and
research (4th ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.
Nota, L., Ferrari, L., Solberg, V., & Soresi, S. (2007). Career search self-efficacy, family support, and career inde-
cision with Italian youth. Journal of Career Assessment, 15, 181193. doi:110.1177/1069072706298019
OBrien, K., Friedman, S., Tipton, L., & Linn, S. (2000). Attachment, separation, and womens vocational devel-
opment: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 301315. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.47.
3.301
Penick, N. (1992). Family functioning and adolescent career development. Career Development Quarterly, 40,
208223.
Roe, A. (1956). Psychology of occupations. New York, NY: Wiley.
Sampson, J. P., Peterson, G. W., Lenz, J. G., Reardon, R. C., & Saunders, D. E. (1996). Career thoughts inventory:
Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Sampson, J. P., Reardon, R. C., Peterson, G. W., & Lenz, J. G. (2004). Career counseling and services: A cog-
nitive information processing approach. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Thomson Learning.
Schultheiss, D. (2003). A relational approach to career counseling: Theoretical integration and practical applica-
tion. Journal of Counseling and Development, 81, 301310.
Schultheiss, D. (2006). The interface of work and family life. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
37, 334341. doi:10.1037/70735-7028.37.4.334
Shin, Y., & Kelly, K. (2013). Cross-cultural comparison of the effects of optimism, intrinsic motivation, and fam-
ily relations on vocational identity. Career Development Quarterly, 61, 141160. doi:10.1002/j.261-0045.
2013.00043.x
Schulenberg, J., Vondracek, F., & Crouter, A. (1984). The influence of the family on vocational development.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 46, 129142.
Smith, C. (2011). Family and role model influences on Black young adults dysfunctional career thoughts (Doc-
toral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest (UMI No. 3492435).
Strauser, D. (Ed.). (2014). Career development, employment, and disability in rehabilitation. New York, NY:
Springer.
Super, D. (1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16,
282298.
Whiston, S., & Keller, B. (2004a). Expanding research concerning family influences on career development:
Cultivating a number of brown spots. The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 612617. doi:10.1177/0011000
004266009
Whiston, S., & Keller, B. (2004b). The influences of the family of origin on career development: A review and
analysis. The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 493568. doi:10.1177/0011000004265660
Wolfe, J., & Betz, N. (2004). The relationship of attachment variables to career decision-making self-efficacy and
fear of commitment. Career Development Quarterly, 52, 363369.

Author Biographies
Daniel C. Lustig, PhD, CRC, is a professor of rehabilitation counseling in the Department of Counseling, Edu-
cational Psychology and Research and Director of the Center for Rehabilitation and Employment Research at The

Downloaded from jcd.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on April 19, 2016


Lustig et al. 13

University of Memphis. He received his PhD in rehabilitation psychology from the University of Wisconsin
Madison in 1995. He has received two research awards from the American Rehabilitation Counseling Association.
His current research interests include family adjustment, adjustment to disability, therapeutic alliance, and career
decision-making. In his spare time, he enjoys watching the Packers and running.

Yonghong Jade Xu, PhD, earned her doctorate degree in educational psychology in 2003 from the University of
Arizona. She is an associate professor of educational research in the Department of Counseling, Educational Psy-
chology, and Research at the University of Memphis. Her current research interests include racial and gender dis-
parities in STEM education and occupations, college student success, and quantitative research methodology. Her
favorite pastime is reading, and she enjoys swimming and spending time with family.
David R. Strauser, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Kinesiology and Community Health at the University
of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign where he also directs the Work and Disability Lab. He received his PhD in reha-
bilitation psychology from the University of WisconsinMadison in 1995. He is one of the six members elected to
the Sloan Family Institute section on Work and Disability, received the distinguished James Garrett Distinguished
Career Research Award (2011) from the American Rehabilitation Counseling Association, the National Council
on Rehabilitation Education New Career Award (1997), Researcher of the Year Award (2011), and received mul-
tiple research awards from the American Rehabilitation Counseling Association and National Rehabilitation
Association. In 2014, he received the George N. Wright Varsity Award given to an outstanding Alumni of the
Rehabilitation Psychology Program at the University of WisconsinMadison. His research focuses on the career
and vocational development of young adults, including young adults with cancer. He is the editor in chief of Reha-
bilitation Research, Policy, and Education and serves on multiple editorial boards of journals related to rehabi-
litation and individuals with disabilities. He is the editor of the book Career Development, Employment, and
Disability in Rehabilitation: From Theory to Practice. He enjoys golf and fishing.

Downloaded from jcd.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on April 19, 2016

Anda mungkin juga menyukai