The Relationship Between Metacognition
and Vocational Indecision
Brent A. Symes
University of Alberta
John B. Stewart
University of New Brunswick
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between metacognition and voca-tional indecision among 100 introductory Psychology students within the parameters of the theory of cognitive information processing advanced by Peterson, Sampson, Reardon and Lenz (1996). The Cornell Critical Thinking Test was employed as a measure of metacognition and the Career Decision Scale served as the measure of vocational indecision. The results of a correlation analysis revealed a significant statistical relationship between metacognition and vocational indecision. In particular, individuals who scored higher on the measure of metacognition, indicating increased metacognitive activity such as monitoring and regulation, evidenced a greater degree of vocational decidedness. Alternatively, those who scored lower were found to be more vocationally undecided. Regression analysis revealed deduction, one of the components of metacognition, as a predominant predictor for decidedness.
Résumé
Le but de cette étude est d'examiner la relation entre la metacognition et l'indécision par rap-port au choix professionnel parmi 100 étudiants d'Introduction à la psychologie en suivant les paramètres de la théorie du traitement de l'information cognitive élaborée par Peterson, Sampson, Reardon et Lenz (1996). O n s'est servi du test de l'esprit critique de Cornell [Cornell Critical Thinking Test] pour mesurer la metacognition et de l'échelle de prise de décision professionnelle [Career Decision Scale] pour mesurer l'indécision par rapport au choix professionnel. Les con-clusions d'une analyse de corrélation ont révélé une relation statistique significative entre la metacognition et l'indécision concernant le choix professionnel. En particulier, les personnes ayant obtenu un niveau élevé lors de la mesure de la metacognition, qui indiquait une présence accrue d'activités métacognitives telles que l'analyse et le contrôle, ont démontré un niveau plus élevé de prise de décision professionnelle. Par opposition, les étudiants ayant obtenu des niveaux inférieurs se sont révélés plus indécisifs au point de vue du choix professionnel. L'analyse de régression a mis en évidence que la déduction, une des composantes de la metacognition, est une variable importante permettant de prédire l'esprit de décision.
Vocational indecision a m o n g h i g h school a n d university students is a significant c o n c e r n a m o n g professional career counsellors (Mitchell & K r u m b o l t z , 1987). T h e p r o b l e m is widespread a n d is estimated to affect 18% to 5 0 % o f university students across the U n i t e d States a n d Canada (Sepich, 1987). Initially research i n this field focused solely o n the differ-ences between decided a n d u n d e c i d e d students (Larson, Heppner, H a m , & D u g a n , 1988). M o r e recently, however, career indecision has been viewed a n d accepted as c o m p r i s i n g several subgroups o f individuals who e x p e r i e n c e difficulty c o n c e r n i n g their vocational decisions (Sepich, 1987). Unfortunately, differentiation between the various subgroups has proven problematic due to a lack o f u n i f o r m results evident i n the re-search literature (Lucas & E p p e r s o n , 1990). Discrimination between
sub-groups is further c o m p o u n d e d due to the large numbers o f u n i d e n t i f i e d variables that may or may not play a role i n the decision-making process
(Sepich, 1987; W a n b e r g & Muchinsky, 1992).
O n e area w h i c h has not received m u c h attention i n the vocational indecision literature is that o f metacognition ( B o d d e n , 1970; Neimeyer, N e v i l l e , P r o b e r t , & F u k u y a m a , 1985; N e v i l l e , Neimeyer, P r o b e r t , & Fukuyama, 1986). M e t a c o g n i t i o n can be defined as what an individual knows about h i s / h e r cognitions, such as the person's knowledge o f cog-nitive processes a n d states i n c l u d i n g attention, memory, knowledge, and conjecture (Flavell, 1979; W e l l m a n , 1985). M e t a c o g n i t i o n also entails the regulation of various aspects o f i n f o r m a t i o n processing such as p l a n n i n g , c h e c k i n g , m o n i t o r i n g , i n d u c t i o n , d e d u c t i o n , observation, credibility, assumptions, meaning, testing, evaluating, a n d the revision o f one's de-cision-making a n d problem-solving strategies.
Recently, Peterson, Sampson, R e a r d o n , a n d L e n z (1996) advocated a t h e o r y that p u r p o r t s to e x p l a i n the c o g n i t i v e d y n a m i c s b e t w e e n metacognition and self a n d occupational knowledge a n d decision-mak-i n g skdecision-mak-ills. T h decision-mak-i s theory decision-mak-is conceptualdecision-mak-ized w decision-mak-i t h decision-mak-i n the framework o f a pyra-m i d o f inforpyra-mation-processing dopyra-mains i n c l u d i n g : (1) self-knowledge
(knowledge d o m a i n ) , (2) occupational knowledge (knowledge d o m a i n ) , (3) generic i n f o r m a t i o n processing skills (decisions skills d o m a i n ) , and (4) metacognitions (executive processing d o m a i n ) .
A c c o r d i n g to Peterson et al. (1996) self-knowledge consists o f percep-tions o f one's interests, abilities, a n d values. O c c u p a t i o n a l knowledge can be subdivided into two components: (1) knowledge o f individual occupations, such as educational requirements, activities a n d duties per-formed; and (2) knowledge o f the structural relationships a m o n g occu-pations w h i c h refers to categorical or h i e r a r c h i c a l knowledge arranged i n such a m a n n e r that permits the e x a m i n a t i o n o f similarities a n d differ-ences between a n d within classifications. T h e decision skills d o m a i n is c o m p r i s e d o f five generic i n f o r m a t i o n processing skills c o m m o n l y em-ployed i n decision-making a n d problem-solving: (1) c o m m u n i c a t i o n , (2) analysis, (3) synthesis, (4) valuing, a n d (5) execution ( C A S V E ) .
T h e e x e c u t i v e p r o c e s s i n g d o m a i n i n c o r p o r a t e s t h r e e p r i m a r y metacognitive activities: (1) self-talk, (2) self-awareness, and (3) c o n t r o l . Self-talk can take the f o r m o f positive self-statements as well as negative self-statements. These statements play an integral role i n the evolution of self-concept and influence problem-solving behaviour (Bandura, 1982). Positive self-statements a n d the b e l i e f i n oneself as competent a n d trust-worthy are essential components for i n d e p e n d e n t a n d responsible prob-lem solving. T h e second component, self-awareness, involves being aware o f oneself while p e r f o r m i n g tasks a n d activities. A t t e n t i o n to self-aware-ness enables the problem-solver to recognize such characteristics as the need for more i n f o r m a t i o n a n d / o r the influence o f negative self-talk.
T h e t h i r d essential c o m p o n e n t to effective p r o b l e m solving a n d sion m a k i n g is referred to as c o n t r o l a n d m o n i t o r i n g . C o m p e t e n t deci-sion-makers a n d problem-solvers m o n i t o r the content a n d extent o f i n f o r m a t i o n i n the lower-order processes, i.e. the C A S V A skills at their disposal. T h e y can quickly detect w h e n there is a deficit i n i n f o r m a t i o n that will prevent progression to the next stage i n the decision-making framework. Alternatively, decision-makers who possess a n d exercise con-trol a n d m o n i t o r i n g skills also k n o w w h e n to move forward to the next step i n the s e q u e n c e o f d e c i s i o n m a k i n g . I n d i v i d u a l s w h o use metacognitive strategies are said to be cognitively complex.
Cognitive complexity and its relationship to vocational decision mak-ing has received some attention i n the vocational literature. B o d d e n ( 1970) and B o d d e n and Klein's (1972) results demonstrated a positive relation-ship between the ability to process information i n a n u m b e r o f ways, ie. cognitive complexity and the appropriateness of a vocational choice based on personality style. Neville, Neimeyer, Probert, and Fukuyama (1986) conceptualized cognitive complexity as the structural features of vocational s c h é m a s w h i c h are composed o f two dimensions—differentiation and i n -tegration. Individuals displaying high integration and low differentiation processed vocational information m u c h more effectively than those who were poorly integrated a n d highly differentiated.
T h e results o f these a n d other studies (Cesari, Winer, & Piper, 1984; Cesari, Winer, Zychlinski, & L a i r d , 1982; Haase, Reed, Winer, & B o d d e n ,
1979) provide p r e l i m i n a r y evidence for the establishment o f a relation-ship between cognitive complexity a n d vocational choice. However, these previous theories and findings do not explore issues related to the m o n i -toring o f one's cognitions. W h e t h e r or not an i n d i v i d u a l possesses h i g h or low levels o f integration a n d differentiation has little bearing o n how these constructs are actually e m p l o y e d by the i n d i v i d u a l . Overall, these previous investigations ( B o d d e n , 1970; B o d d e n , & James, 1976; B o d d e n , & K l e i n , 1972; Neville, Neimeyer, Probert, & Fukuyama, 1986) fail to address the process by w h i c h individuals m o n i t o r their vocational schema
(self-knowledge a n d occupational knowledge) a n d level o f integration. T h e use o f metacognitive strategies i n various problem-solving situa-tions is well d o c u m e n t e d i n the literature ( H a r m o n , 1993). Investigators have e x a m i n e d areas such as mathematical ability (Cardelle, 1995), de-pression (Slife & Weaver, 1992), learning disabled individuals (Borkowski, Estrada, Milstead, & H a l e , 1989), parenting styles (Kontos 8c Nicholas, 1986), creativity (Betsinger, Cross, & D e F i o r e , 1994), personal beliefs ( S c h ä u b l e , 1990), and peer interactions ( K i n g , 1991; Vansickle & H ö g e , 1991) i n relation to problem-solving ability a n d the use o f metacognitive strategies.
Research has demonstrated that metacognitive strategies develop with age, (English, 1992); enable individuals to execute problem-solving
ac-tivities quickly a n d effectively (Berardi-Coletta, Buyer, D o m i n o w s k i , & Rellinger,1995; Swanson, 1990); can be taught a n d e n h a n c e d i n a sys-tematic m a n n e r (Delclos & H a r r i n g t o n , 1991); a n d appears to be associ-ated with h i g h e r levels o f measured aptitude (Swanson, 1992). W h e n c o m b i n e d with clearly articulated goals, h i g h levels of metacognition plays a significant role i n the decision-making process (Ridley, Schutz, Glanz, & Weinstein, 1992; Slife, Weiss, & B e l l , 1985). Results o f these studies clearly indicate that metacognitive c o n t r o l l i n g a n d m o n i t o r i n g skills play an integral role i n the problem-solving process. These results also have strong implications with respect to the focus o f the present study since problem-solving skills are a necessary c o m p o n e n t for effective vocational decision m a k i n g (Peterson et al., 1996).
T h e m o d e l presented by Peterson et al. (1996) proposes an alterna-tive explanation for the problems i n c u r r e d by vocationally u n d e c i d e d individuals as well as a remedy for such difficulties. T h e purpose o f this investigation was to test several components o f this theoretical m o d e l . It was hypothesized that individuals who are d e c i d e d c o n c e r n i n g their vo-cational aspirations will demonstrate h i g h e r levels of processing and cog-nitive m o n i t o r i n g skills. Alternatively, vocationally u n d e c i d e d individuals are hypothesized to demonstrate lower levels o f processing a n d cogni-tive m o n i t o r i n g skills. T h e results o f this investigation will contribute to o u r understanding o f the metacognitive skills r e q u i r e d to enable i n d i -viduals to make vocational decisions as well as the o n g o i n g m o n i t o r i n g a n d c o o r d i n a t i o n o f vocational development issues.
M E T H O D Participants and Procedure
T h e sample used i n this study consisted o f approximately 100 volunteer undergraduate university students e n r o l l e d i n i n t r o d u c t o r y Psychology at a university i n Atlantic Canada. Participants completed a demographic questionnaire, followed by the Career D e c i s i o n Scale a n d the C o r n e l l C r i t i c a l T h i n k i n g Test, Level Z. D e b r i e f i n g i n f o r m a t i o n was distributed to each individual describing the nature o f the issues addressed i n the questionnaires a n d also p r o v i d e d references for those individuals inter-ested i n further e x p l o r i n g this topic o f investigation.
Instruments
The Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z. T h e C o r n e l l Critical T h i n k i n g
Test (Ennis, M i l l m a n , & T o m k o , 1985) was selected as a measure o f m e t a c o g n i t i o n . T h i s test is designed for academically advanced a n d "gifted" (p. 3) h i g h school students, university students, a n d adults. T h e test has been extensively employed by educational institutions as a means o f assessing m e t a c o g n i t i o n ( W e l l m a n , 1985) i n r e l a t i o n to c r i t i c a l -t h i n k i n g ins-truc-tion.
Six factors d e e m e d as essential aspects o f critical t h i n k i n g f o r m the basis o f this 52-item m u l t i p l e choice test. D e d u c t i o n involves the ability to arrive at a specific c o n c l u s i o n based o n generalizations. T h u s , the re-sponses (conclusions) proposed i n this section o f the C o r n e l l either con-cur o r contradict with statements (generalizations) the test takers are r e q u i r e d to read. Scores o n these items range from 0 to 24. M e a n i n g focuses o n the verbal a n d linguistic aspects of an argument. Possible scores o n this c o m p o n e n t range f r o m 0 to 15. T h e credibility c o m p o n e n t re-quires accurate delineation o f the statement that is a truthful represen-tation o f i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d for the test takers p r i o r to each question. T h e scores o n this subscale range from 0 to 4. I n d u c t i o n is a f o r m o f reason that involves the ability to formulate generalizations based o n observation o f a small n u m b e r o f specific events. Generalizations, ac-c o r d i n g to E n n i s et al. (1985) must aac-cac-curately e x p l a i n faac-cts, as well as r e m a i n plausible. T h e scores o n this subscale range from 0 to 18. As-sumption identification is defined as the ability to fill a deficit i n reason-i n g . Scores o n threason-is measure range from 0 to 10. Lastly, the observatreason-ion subscale, w h i c h is interrelated with the credibility c o m p o n e n t has a range of scores from 0 to 4.
Overall scores o n the inventory range from a m i n i m u m o f 0 to a maxi-m u maxi-m o f 75. E a c h correct response is valued at one point. H i g h scores indicate the presence o f deep levels o f metacognitive activity whereas low scores reflect shallow levels o f metacognition.
Split-half reliability estimates for the C o r n e l l C r i t i c a l T h i n k i n g Test, Level Z , range f r o m .50 to .77 (Ennis et al., 1985). In addition, item analyses estimates mean difficulty ranges from .55 to .61 w h i c h are i n the ideal range o f .50 (Ennis et al., 1985). Alternatively, d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n d i -ces are low r a n g i n g from .20 to .24; possibly reflecting the heterogeneity o f critical t h i n k i n g skills (Ennis et al., 1985).
E n n i s et al. (1985) also extensively e x p l o r e d the construct validity o f the test. F o r example, the c o r r e l a t i o n coefficient between the C o r n e l l a n d the Watson-Glaser C r i t i c a l T h i n k i n g A p p r a i s a l (Watson & Glaser, 1980), i n two separate studies, was .48 a n d .79 respectively while the cor-relation between the C o r n e l l a n d the L o g i c a l Reasoning Test, Part II, F o r m A ( H e r t z k a & G u i l f o r d , 1955) was .25. It is important to note that each critical t h i n k i n g test defines a n d attempts to measure critical think-i n g abthink-ilthink-ity think-i n a slthink-ightly dthink-ifferent m a n n e r w h think-i c h c o u l d provthink-ide an expla-nation for the moderate relationships between the tests (Lawrenz 8c O r t o n , 1992). T h e C o r n e l l C r i t i c a l T h i n k i n g Test has also been corre-lated with various other instruments such as scholastic aptitude measures
(ranged from .36 to .71), a n d personality inventories (Ennis et al., 1985). T h e criterion-related validity o f the C o r n e l l C r i t i c a l T h i n k i n g Test, Level Z remains u n e x p l o r e d due to the absence o f a recognized established criterion for critical t h i n k i n g ability.
The Career Decision Scale, Third Revision. T h e Career Decision Scale ( C D S ;
Osipow, Carney, Winer, Yanico, & Koschier, 1976) was employed as a measure of vocational i n d e c i s i o n . T h e C D S is a 19-item self-report ques-tionnaire and has been used extensively i n the research literature to measure vocational i n d e c i s i o n (Slaney, 1991). T h i s standardized instru-m e n t was chosen based o n its capacity to differentiate between d e c i d e d a n d u n d e c i d e d students as well as to measure antecedents o f career i n -decision (Larson, H e p p n e r , H a m , 8c D u g a n , 1988).
T h e Career Decision Scale utilizes a L i k e r t type scale to measure par-ticipants' responses. T h e alternatives range from 1 to 4 a n d c o r r e s p o n d to "not like me at a l l , " "only slightly like me," "very m u c h like me," a n d "exactly like me." T h e initial two items provide a measure o f vocational certainty ranging from a m i n i m u m score o f two to a m a x i m u m o f eight. L o w scores indicate a lack o f vocational certainty while h i g h scores dem-onstrate certainty about a vocational choice. T h e ensuing 16 items quan-tify level of vocational indecision by p r o v i d i n g a score ranging from a low o f 16 to a h i g h o f 64. H i g h scores o n these items indicate vocational indecision whereas low scores reflect vocational decidedness. T h e final item o n the scale permits respondents to briefly c o m m e n t u p o n their vocational status i f n o n e o f the above items apply (Osipow et al., 1976).
S h i m i z u , Vondracek, S c h u l e n b e r g , a n d Hostetler (1988) c o n d u c t e d a factor analysis o f the 16 i n d e c i s i o n items revealing four factors: (1) Diffusion (items 7, 8, 11), (2) Relative Decidedness (12, 16, 18), (3) A p -p r o a c h Conflict (4, 15, 17), a n d (4) I n t e r n a l / E x t e r n a l Barriers (3, 5, 6, 9). A follow-up study c o n d u c t e d by S c h u l e n b e r g , S h i m i z u , Vondracek, and Hostetler (1988) replicated this factor structure, thus, p r o v i d i n g further evidence for its validity.
Diffusion is operationally defined by S h i m i z u et al. (1988) as reflec-tive o f feelings o f i n d e c i s i o n c o u p l e d with confusion, a n d discourage-ment, as well as a lack o f experience a n d i n f o r m a t i o n . Scores o n the diffusion scale range from 3 to 12. Relative decidedness describes those individuals who have made a vocational decision but are uncertain about how to i m p l e m e n t their decision, a n d thus require a d d i t i o n a l support. Scores o n relative decidedness range from 3 to 12. A p p r o a c h conflict represents a situation whereby several possible careers are attractive and the individual experiences difficulty d e c i d i n g exactly w h i c h path he or she will choose. A g a i n , scores o n this factor range from 3 to 12. T h e last factor is labeled i n t e r n a l / e x t e r n a l barriers. T h i s factor is indicative o f a lack o f interest i n m a k i n g a vocational choice as well as external barriers, i.e., lack o f support o r resources, pertinent to the individual's situation. Scores o n this factor range from 4 to 16.
Osipow, Carney, and Barak (1976) report test-retest correlations o f .90 and .82 for the C D S o n two separate samples o f university students. A second study c o n d u c t e d by Slaney, Palko-Nonemaker, a n d A l e x a n d e r
(1981) revealed a test-retest c o r r e l a t i o n o f .70. Individual item analyses resulted i n item correlations r a n g i n g from .19 to .70 (Slaney, Palko-Nonemaker, & Alexander, 1981).
N u m e r o u s studies provide strong support for the construct a n d con-current validity of the Career Decision Scale (Osipow, 1980). For instance, Osipow a n d Schweikert (1981) c o m p a r e d total scores o n the C D S with the Assessment of Career Decision M a k i n g ( A C D M ; Buck & Daniels, 1985) yielding supportive results. Westbrook ( 1980) obtained a significant nega-tive relationship between the Career Decision Scale a n d career maturity attitudes, thus suggesting that h i g h i n d e c i s i o n scores are associated with low levels o f career maturity. T h e r e is significant support for the content validity o f the Career Decision Scale (Osipow, 1980).
A questionnaire assessing the d e m o g r a p h i c characteristics o f each participant was administered.. Participants were asked to indicate their gender, date o f b i r t h , faculty, major area o f concentration, whether or not they have previously attended another college or university, the gen-der a n d n u m b e r o f siblings i n their family, their most recent grade p o i n t average, location o f family dwelling ( r u r a l / u r b a n ) , father's occupation a n d level o f education as well as their mother's o c c u p a t i o n a n d level of education.
R E S U L T S Demographic Characteristics
Overall sample size totaled 100 a n d consisted o f 25 males, 74 females a n d one whose gender was not identified. T h i s sample was primarily com-prised o f students from the faculty o f arts (41), followed by science (17), kinesiology (19), business (15), arts/science (3), c o m p u t e r science (2), no degree (2), a n d arts/computer science (1). Ages for the entire sample ranged from 18.25 years to 43.50 years with a mean o f 20.32 years (N = 99). Males ranged from 18.41 years to 33 years with a mean age o f 20.83 years (N= 25). Females ranged from 18.25 to 43.50 years with a mean age o f 20.15 years (N= 74).
A total o f 13 (52%) out o f 25 males i n d i c a t e d that they h a d declared a major whereas 41 (55.40%) out o f 74 females stated that they h a d de-clared a major. Fourteen (56%) males reported that they presently lived i n a r u r a l setting while 36 (52.17%) females presently lived i n a r u r a l location. Fifteen (60%) males a n d 56 (75.67%) females identified a vo-cational choice. These u n d e c i d e d percentages are consistent with those reported i n the research literature (Sepich, 1987).
E x a m i n a t i o n o f self-reported grade p o i n t averages revealed an aver-age o f 2.88 with a range o f 1.10 to 4.20 for the entire sample (N= 85). A c a d e m i c standing for males ranged from 1.4 to 4.2 with an average o f 3.02 (N= 24). T h e female average was slightly lower at 2.82 with a range
of 1.10 to 4.00 (N= 60). A s well, each participant i n this study received one participation point, equivalent to o n e percent, toward their final grade i n Psychology 1000.
Descriptive Statistics
Analysis o f the data presented i n Tables 1 a n d 2 e m p l o y e d the use o f t-tests a n d revealed n o significant differences between the means for males a n d females o n the subscales a n d overall scores from b o t h the C o r n e l l C r i t i c a l T h i n k i n g Test (Ennis et al., 1985) a n d the Career Decision Scale (Osipow et al., 1976).
T A B L E 1
Summary of Means and Standard Deviations for Subscales on the Measure of Cognitive Information Processing fen-Females (N = 74), Males (N = 25) and the Entire Sample ( N = 100)
Females Males Total
Subscale Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
1. Induction 9.82 2.90 10.80 1.98 10.07 2.70 2. Deduction 12.51 2.76 12.68 3.11 12.57 2.82 3. Observation 1.93 1.06 1.96 1.27 1.95 1.11 4. Credibility 1.93 1.06 1.96 1.27 1.95 1.11 5. Assumptions 4.76 1.76 5.28 1.79 4.9 1.77 6. Meaning 5.58 1.87 6.24 2.11 5.75 1.94 7. Total 25.35 4.90 27.16 5.04 25.85 4.97 T A B L E 2
Summary of Means, and Standard Deviations for Factors on the Measure of Vocational Indecision for
Females (N = 74), Males (N = 25) and the Entire Sample ( N' = 100)
Females Males Total
Factors Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
1. Diffusion 6.15 2.78 5.32 2.41 5.94 2.69 2. Relative 6.05 2.26 6.08 2.14 6.04 2.22 Decidedness 3. Approach Conflict 6.91 2.53 7.12 2.03 7.00 2.43 4. Internal/External 6.81 2.62 6.32 2.34 6.75 2.62 Barriers 5. Certainty 5.66 1.74 5.96 1.74 5.7 1.77 6. Indecision 31.39 10.11 30.2 8.83 31.22 9.85
Correlation Analysis
Analysis revealed that the total score from measuring metacognition (see Table 3) was significantly negatively correlated with the total vocational indecision score (r = -.37, p < .001), a n d was significantly positively re-lated to vocational certainty ( r = .20, p< .05).
T h r e e subscales from the C o r n e l l were significantly related to the to-tal vocational i n d e c i s i o n score i n c l u d i n g i n d u c t i o n ( r = -.21, p < .05), d e d u c t i o n (r= -.38, p< .001), a n d m e a n i n g (r= -.28, jf? < .01). D e d u c t i o n (r= .22, p< .05) was the only subscale that resulted i n a significant corre-lation with vocational certainty.
T h e total score o n the C o r n e l l was significantly related to each o f the factors o n the C D S ; diffusion (r= -.34, jt»< .01), relative decidedness (r = -.32, p< .01), approach conflict (r= -.26, p< .05), a n d i n t e r n a l / e x t e r n a l barriers (r=-.29,p< .01). Several significant correlations were evidenced between the subscales o n the C o r n e l l a n d the factors o f the C D S ( Shimizu et al.,1988). D e d u c t i o n showed a consistent pattern o f correlation with diffusion ( r = -.31, p< .01), relative decidedness ( r = -.31, p< .01), ap-p r o a c h conflict (r= -.32,ap-p< .01), a n d i n t e r n a l / e x t e r n a l barriers (r=-.26,
p< .01). As well, m e a n i n g was significantly related to diffusion (r= -.27, p
< .01), approach conflict (r= -.20, p< .05), a n d i n t e r n a l / e x t e r n a l barri-ers (r=-.27,p< .01).
Males
T h e data for males evidenced n o significant relationship between the total score o n the C o r n e l l a n d the total score o n the C D S (r= -.39) a n d the vocational certainty measure (r= .28). N o n e o f the subscales o n the C o r n e l l were significantly related to the vocational indecision score n o r the vocational certainty score.
Several significant correlations were apparent between the subscales o n the C o r n e l l a n d the factors o n the C D S . D e d u c t i o n was negatively related to relative decidedness ( r = -.40, p < .05) as well as approach con-flict (r= -.60,/?< .01). Observation was significantly related to diffusion (r = -.44, p < .05) while credibility was also related to diffusion (r = -.44, p < .05).
Females
A statistically significant c o r r e l a t i o n was f o u n d between the total score o n the C o r n e l l a n d the total score o n the C D S (r= -.38, p< .01) but not for the vocational certainty score (r= .20). Two subscales o f the C o r n e l l , d e d u c t i o n (r = -.39, p< .01) a n d m e a n i n g (r = -.29, p < .05) were signifi-cantly c o r r e l a t e d with v o c a t i o n a l i n d e c i s i o n ; however, n o n e o f the subscales o n the C o r n e l l were significantly correlated with the vocational certainty measure (-.02 to .22).
Intercorrelations Between Metacognition and Vocational Indecision for the Entire Sample (N=100) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 li 12 13 1. I n d u c t i o n — .41* .10 .10 .06 .25* .72* -.18 -.18 -.15 -.15 .15 -.21* 2. D e d u c t i o n — .12 .12 . 6 5 | .38* .79* -.31t -.311 -.32t -.26f .22* -.38* 3. Observation — 1.00* .03 .16 .39* -.18 -.18 .00 -.09 .05 -.13 4. C r e d i b i l i t y — .03 .16 .39* -.18 -.18 .00 -.09 .05 -.13 5. Assumptions — .32t .47* -.19 -.13 -.09 -.20* .11 -.18 6. M e a n i n g — .62* - . 2 7 | -.15 -.20* -.27+ .13 -.28+ 7. Total Score — -.34+ -.32f -.26* -.29+ .20* -.37* 8. Diffusion — .48* .65* .56* -.59* .87* 9. Relative Decidedness — .45* .37* - . 3 1 | .70* 10. A p p r o a c h C o n f l i c t — .40* -.57* .78* 11. I n t e r n a l / E x t e r n a l Barriers — -.35* .75* 12. Certainty — -.60* 13. Indecision * £ < . 0 5 tp<01 Í/X.001
Investigation into the relationship between the total score o n the C o r n e l l a n d the factors o n the C D S revealed a statistically significant link with diffusion ( r = -.33, p< .01), relative decidedness (r= -.33, p< .01), approach conflict (r= .25, p< .05), a n d i n t e r n a l / e x t e r n a l barriers (r= -.33, p< .01). Several significant correlations were apparent between the subscales o n the C o r n e l l a n d the factors o n the C D S . D e d u c t i o n proved to be significantly related to diffusion (r= - .34, p< .01), relative decided-ness (r= -.28, p< .05), approach conflict (r= -.27, p< .05), a n d i n t e r n a l / external barriers ( r = -.34, p < .01). Assumptions was significantly inter-connected with i n t e r n a l / e x t e r n a l barriers (r= .30,p< .01). M e a n i n g w a s negatively l i n k e d to diffusion (r= -.25, p< .05), to i n t e r n a l / e x t e r n a l bar-riers (r= -.28, p< .05) a n d approach conflict (r= -.23, p< .05).
Regression Analysis
Results o f a stepwise m u l t i p l e regression, for the entire sample, indicate that d e d u c t i o n proved to be the only significant predictor for indecision
[F (1, 98) = 16.05, p< .001] a n d contributed 14% (R2 = .145), albeit a small amount, to the variability i n p r e d i c t i n g vocational indecision. De-d u c t i o n was also a significant preDe-dictor for approach conflict [F(\, 98) =
11.39, p< .01], a n d vocational certainty [F(l, 98 ) = 4.94, p< .05], a n d contributed 10% (R2 = .1041) a n d 4% (R2 = .0479) respectively to the variability o f each measure. Total score o n the C o r n e l l resulted i n the only significant predictor o f diffusion [F ( 1,98) = 12.92, p< .001], rela-tive decidedness [F(l, 98) = 11.04,p< .01] a n d i n t e r n a l / e x t e r n a l barri-ers [F (1, 98) = 8.88, p < .01]. T h e total score contributed 11% (R2 = .1164) to the variability i n p r e d i c t i n g diffusion, 10% (R2= .1012) to rela-tive decidedness, a n d 8 % (R2 = .0831) to i n t e r n a l / e x t e r n a l barriers. Males
A stepwise m u l t i p l e regression analysis revealed that deduction proved to significantly predict relative decidedness [F(l, 23) = 4.47,p< .05] a n d contributed 16% (R2= .1629) to the variability i n predicting relative de-cidedness. A s well, d e d u c t i o n was a significant predictor o f approach conflict (1,23) = 12.66, p< .01] c o n t r i b u t i n g 35% (R2 = .3551) o f the variance. Credibility was the sole predictor for diffusion [F ( 1,23) = 5.62,
p< .05] a n d contributed 19% (R2= .1965) o f the variance. Females
Results o f a stepwise regression analysis for females were similar to that described for the e n u r e sample. D e d u c t i o n proved to be a significant predictor o f indecision [F(l, 72) = 12.87, p< .001], diffusion [F(l,72) = 9.66,p< .01], approach conflict [F(l, 72) = 5.46,p< .05], a n d i n t e r n a l /
external barriers [F(l, 72) = 9.12, p< .01]. D e d u c t i o n contributed 15%
(R2 = .1517) to the variability i n p r e d i c t i n g i n d e c i s i o n , 11% (R2= .1183) to diffusion, 7% to approach conflict, a n d 11% (R2 = .1124) to i n t e r n a l / external barriers. Total score o n the C o r n e l l was a significant predictor o f relative decidedness [F (1,72 )= 8.95,/?< .01] c o n t r i b u t i n g 11 % (R2 = .1106) o f the variance.
DISCUSSION
T h e results o f this investigation reveal a significant statistical relation-ship between metacognition and vocational indecision. These results fall i n line with the previously stated hypotheses as well as the theory pro-posed by Peterson et al. (1996). Results o f correlation analysis for the entire sample as well as for females demonstrate that metacognition is significantly related to vocational i n d e c i s i o n . Interestingly, the correla-tion coefficient for the female-only g r o u p is marginally higher than for the entire sample. However, level o f significance is more stringent for the total sample than for females. T h e d i r e c t i o n o f these correlations is negative w h i c h indicates that those who score low o n the vocational i n -decision scale tend to score h i g h e r o n the measure o f metacognition. In other words, those who are m o r e d e c i d e d , i.e., low scores o n the indeci-sion scale, engage i n deeper levels o f metacognition as indicated by a h i g h score o n the C o r n e l l C r i t i c a l T h i n k i n g Test. T h e correlation coeffi-cient for the male only analysis is stronger than either the total sample or the female analysis; however, it is not statistically significant. A n obvious explanation for this lack o f significance c o u l d be the small sample size
(N= 25). In sum, these results provide evidence for the relationship
be-tween decisional status a n d cognitive complexity a n d fall i n line with previous research i n this area ( B o d d e n , 1970; B o d d e n & K l e i n , 1972).
As predicted, the relationship between metacognition a n d the cer-tainty scale, i.e., level o f decidedness, is positive i n nature. T h u s , those who obtained h i g h e r scores o n vocational certainty also scored higher o n the measure o f metacognitive activity. T h e r e is only one statistically significant correlation between these two measures w h i c h occurs when all participants are i n c l u d e d i n the analysis.
In particular, d e d u c t i o n , a subscale o n the C o r n e l l Critical T h i n k i n g Test, was consistently associated with the i n d e c i s i o n scale, certainty scale, as well as the i n d i v i d u a l factors o n the C D S . Specifically, with respect to the total sample, d e d u c t i o n was significantly correlated with diffusion, relative decidedness, approach conflict, a n d i n t e r n a l / e x t e r n a l barriers. In other words, those who obtained h i g h scores o n d e d u c t i o n also scored low o n the Career Decision Scale i n d i c a t i n g increased levels o f decided-ness. F o r the female only analysis, d e d u c t i o n was significantly related to the i n d e c i s i o n scale, diffusion, relative decidedness, approach conflict,
a n d i n t e r n a l / e x t e r n a l barriers, i.e., h i g h d e d u c t i o n scores were associ-ated with low scores o n the C D S . D e d u c t i o n proved to be significantly l i n k e d to relative decidedness a n d approach conflict when only males were considered.
Results o f the stepwise m u l t i p l e regression analysis p r o v i d e d a l i m i t e d n u m b e r o f predictors for vocational i n d e c i s i o n , a n d certainty as well as the factors o n the four career decision scales, i.e., diffusion, relative de-cidedness, approach conflict, a n d i n t e r n a l / e x t e r n a l barriers. In fact, d e d u c t i o n was f o u n d to be the single significant predictor for vocational indecision, vocational certainty, a n d approach conflict when the entire sample was e x a m i n e d . Alternatively, the total score o n the measure o f metacognition was f o u n d to be a predictor o f diffusion, relative decided-ness, and i n t e r n a l / e x t e r n a l barriers.
Results o f the analysis i n c l u d i n g only females also evidenced deduc-tion as a consistent predictor. In this analysis d e d u c t i o n was the single predictor for i n d e c i s i o n , diffusion, approach conflict, a n d i n t e r n a l / e x -ternal barriers. T h e total score o n the C o r n e l l was the best predictor o f relative decidedness while there was an absence o f significant predictors for vocational certainty. A s expected, results o f the regression analysis for males were l i m i t e d . D e d u c t i o n was a significant predictor for diffu-sion a n d relative decidedness. Credibility also emerged as a predictor for diffusion.
Overall findings o f this p r e l i m i n a r y investigation into the relation-ship between metacognitive attributes a n d vocational i n d e c i s i o n l e n d support for the previously stated hypothesis as well as for the theory ad-vanced by Peterson, et al. (1996). Specifically, individuals who are de-c i d e d de-c o n de-c e r n i n g their vode-cational aspirations engage i n higher levels o f metacognition. Alternatively, those individuals who are vocationally und e c i und e und engage i n lower levels o f metacognition. It appears that i n und i -viduals who engage i n deeper levels o f metacognitive activity, that is, they
m o n i t o r a n d regulate their thought processes, evidence a greater de-gree of vocational decidedness as c o m p a r e d to those who engage i n more shallow levels o f metacognitive activity. Further, the metacognitive regu-lating skills o f d e d u c t i o n a n d semantics (meaning making) may have a central role i n vocational decision m a k i n g .
T h e results o f this study have implications for career counsellors when working with vocationally u n d e c i d e d individuals. Peterson's (1996) m o d e l suggests the necessity o f certain knowledge domains (self a n d w o r l d o f w o r k ) , decision-making skills ( c o m m u n i c a t i o n , analysis, synthesis, val-ues a n d execution), as well as the use o f metacognition i f individuals are to make a vocational decision. M o r e specifically, two metacognitive skills, d e d u c t i o n a n d m e a n i n g m a k i n g , appear to be key i n m a k i n g vocational decisions. T h e metacognitive skill o f d e d u c t i o n , that is, the ability to draw conclusions f r o m the i n f o r m a t i o n about self a n d work appears to be
re-lated to m a k i n g a vocational decision. Perhaps, vocationally u n d e c i d e d individuals have e n o u g h i n f o r m a t i o n but are not able to draw c o n c l u -sions from this i n f o r m a t i o n i n a m a n n e r w h i c h aids vocational decision m a k i n g . Similarly the skill o f m e a n i n g m a k i n g (semantics), that is, the ability to interpret i n f o r m a t i o n about self a n d work appears to be l i n k e d to m a k i n g vocational decisions. Perhaps vocationally u n d e c i d e d individu-als are not able to interpret the i n f o r m a t i o n they have w i t h i n their personal a n d social context. In sum, these components emerged as inte-gral factors i n vocational d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g w i t h i n the context o f this investigation.
By i m p l i c a t i o n then, career counsellors w o u l d d o well to attend to the self-regulating aspects o f their client's t h i n k i n g a n d help them clients draw appropriate conclusions from the self a n d occupational informa-tion gained within the c o u n s e l l i n g process. Further, counsellors might h e l p their clients to interpret these conclusions i n a m a n n e r appropriate to the client's context. F o r example, having skills i n Mathematics a n d b e i n g able to apply them is relative to the level o f scholastic achieve-ment. Additionally, counsellors might teach vocationally u n d e c i d e d cli-ents the skills o f semantics a n d d e d u c t i o n s for use i n their future vocational decision m a k i n g .
T h i s study has several limitations. First, the participants employed i n this study consist o f i n t r o d u c t o r y Psychology 1000 students who received credit toward their final grade. T h u s , the results are l i m i t e d i n their generalizability to undergraduate university students, particularly those who may have a tendency to volunteer for research studies i n return for course credit.
Secondly, although each participant was e n r o l l e d i n Psychology 1000, not all participants were e n r o l l e d i n the faculty o f Arts. D u e to the un-even distribution o f participants i n n u m e r o u s faculties, it is difficult to generalize the findings to the university p o p u l a t i o n . In addition, ran-d o m sampling w o u l ran-d have been the o p t i m a l m e t h o ran-d o f a c q u i r i n g par-ticipants. T h e t h i r d l i m i t a t i o n o f this study is the unequal sampling o f male and female subjects. Optimally, a sample consisting o f equal male a n d female participants w o u l d have been preferred and, i n t u r n , w o u l d have facilitated the analysis a n d identification o f inherent differences between these populations.
T h e results o f this investigation clearly p o i n t to the relationship be-tween metacognition a n d vocational i n d e c i s i o n . Previous research has demonstrated the association between m e t a c o g n i t i o n a n d p r o b l e m -solving ability as well as the positive effect o f instructional training aimed at e n h a n c i n g metacognitive awareness a n d processing (Berardi-Coletta, Buyer, D o m i n o w s k i , & Reilinger, 1995; Delclos & H a r r i n g t o n , 1991; E n g l i s h , 1992; Ridley, Shutz, Glanz, & Weinstein, 1992; Slife, Weiss, & B e l l , 1985; Swanson, 1990, 1992). Therefore, the implications a n d
ben-efits o f i m p l e m e n t i n g metacognitive instructional techniques a n d pro-grams w i t h i n the parameters o f vocational guidance a n d c o u n s e l l i n g c o u l d prove valuable.
Undoubtedly, further research i n this area o f investigation is r e q u i r e d to validate the results o f this study, as well as to extend research i n this d o m a i n . First, future research i n this area s h o u l d address the relation-ship between metacognition a n d vocational indecision with respect to potential differences observed between males a n d females. I n a d d i t i o n , it may also prove beneficial to explore an alternate m e t h o d o f investigat-i n g metacogninvestigat-itinvestigat-ion. T h investigat-i s r e c o m m e n d a t investigat-i o n investigat-is based o n the fact that varinvestigat-i- vari-ous measures o f metacognition conceptualize the n o t i o n i n a slightly different manner. I n a d d i t i o n , it is evident from this investigation that d e d u c t i o n is an integral factor i n the development o f metacognitive pro-cessing. Therefore, a measure that maintains an increased emphasis o n d e d u c t i o n c o u l d prove useful i n the detection o f metacognitive activity.
References
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanisms in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-47. Berardi-Coletta, B., Buyer, L. S., Dominowski, R. L . , & Rellinger, E. R. (1995). Metacognition
and problem solving: A process-oriented approach, /(rumai ofExperimental Psychology, 27(1), 205-23.
Betsinger, A. M . , Cross, J . F., & DeFiore, R. M . (1994). Problem-solving and metacognition.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 1072-74.
Bodden, J . L. (1970). Cognitive complexity as a factor in appropriate vocational choice.
Jour-nal of Counseling Psychology, 17(4), 364-68.
Bodden, J . L., & James, !.. E. (1976). Influence of occupational information giving on cogni-tive complexity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 23 (3), 280-82.
Bodden, J . L.,& Klein, A. J . (1972). Cognitive complexity and appropriate vocational choice: Another look. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 19($), 257-58.
Borkowski, J . G., Estrada, M. T., Milstead, M., & Hale, C. A. (1989). General problem-solving skills: Relations between metacognition and strategic processing. Learning Disabilities
Quar-terly, 12, 57-70.
Buck, J . N., & Daniels, M. H . (1985). Assessment of Career Decision Making. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Cardelle, E. M. (1995). Effects of metacognitive instruction on low achievers in mathematics problems. Teaching and Teacher Education, / / ( 1 ) , 81-95.
Cesari, J. P., Winer, J. L., & Piper, K. R. (1984). Vocational decision status and the effect of four types of occupational information on cognitive complexity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 25, 215-24.
Cesari, J. P., Winer, J . L.. Zychlinski, F., & Laird, I. O. (1982). Influence of occupational infor-mation giving on cognitive complexity in decided versus undecided students. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 21, 224-30.
Delclos, V. R., & Harrington, C. (1991). Effects of strategy monitoring and proactive instruc-tion on children's problem-solving performance. Journal ofEducainstruc-tional Psychology, 83, 35-42. English, L. D. (1992). Children's use of domain-speäfic knowledge and domanin- general strategies in
novel problem solving. Paper presented at the meeting of the Annual Meeting of the
Ameri-can Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Ennis, R. H . , Millman, J., & Tomko, T. N. (1985). Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X and Level
Flavell, J . H . (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-devel-opmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34 (10), 906-11.
Haase, R. F., Reed, C. F., Winer, J. L„ & Bodden, J. L. (1979). Effect of positive, negative, and mixed occupational information on cognitive and affective complexity. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 15, 294-302.
Harmon, M. G. ( 1993). The role of strategies and knowledge in problem solving: A review of the
litera-ture. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 366-640).
Hertzka, A. F., & Guilford, J. P. (1955). Logical Reasoning Test, Part II, Form A. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
King, A. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning on children's problem-solving per-formance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 307-17.
Kontos, S., & Nicholas, J . G. (1986). Independent problem solving in the development of metacognition. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 147(4),481-95.
Larson, L. M., Heppner, P. P „ H a m , T., & Dugan, K. (1988). Investigating multiple subtypes of career indecision through cluster analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35 (4), 439-46. Lawrenz, F., & Orton, R. E. ( 1992). Cornell Critical Thinking Tests—Level X and Level Z. In D.
J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test Critiques, Volume IX (pp. 123-31). Austin, T X : PRO-ED, Inc.
Lucas, M. S., & Epperson, D. L. (1990). Types of vocational undecidedness: A replication and refinement./ouraa/o/ Counseling Psychology, 37(4), 382-88.
Mitchell, L. K., & Krumboltz, J . D. (1987). The effects of cognitive restructuring and decision-making on career indecision. Journal of Counseling and Development, 66, 171-74. Neimeyer, G. J . , Neville, D. D , Probert, B., & Fukuyama, M. (1985). Cognitive structures in
vocational development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 27, 191-201.
Neville, D. D., Neimeyer, G. J . , Probert, B., & Fukuyama, M. (1986). Cognitive structures in vocational information processing and decision-making. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 28, 110-22.
Osipow, S. H . (1980). Career Decision Scale Manual. Columbus, O H : Marathon Consulting & Press.
Osipow, S. H., Carney, C. G.,& Barak, A. (1976). A scale of educational-vocational undecidedness: a typological approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9, 233-43.
Osipow, S. H . , Carney, C. G., Winer, J. L., Yanico, B., & Koschier, M. (1976). The Career Decision
Scale (3rd revision). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Osipow, S. H . , & Schweikert, D. (1981). The Career Decision Scale: A test of concurrent valid-ity. Psychological Reports, 48, 759-61.
Peterson, G. W., Sampson, J. P.,Jr., Reardon, R. C , & Lenz, J . G. (1996). A cognitive informa-tion processing approach to career problem solving and decision-making. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates (Eds.), Career choice and development (3rd edition) (pp. 423-75). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ridley, D. S., Schutz, P. A., Glanz, R. S„ & Weinstein, C. E. (1992). Self-regulated learning: The interactive influence of metacognitive awareness and goal setting. Journal of Experimental
Education, 60(4),293-306.
Schäuble, L. ( 1990). Belief revision in children: The role of prior knowledge and strategies for generating evidence, fournal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 31-57.
Sepich, R. T. (1987). A review of the correlates and measurements of career indecision. Journal
of Career Development, 14 (I), 8-23.
Shimizu, K., Vondracek, F. W., Schulenberg, J. E . , & Hostetler, M . (1988). The factor structure of the Career Decision Scale: Similarities across selected studies. Journal of Vocational
Behav-ior, 52,213-25.
Slaney, R. B. (1991). Career Decision Scale. In D. J . Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test
Critiques, Volume VIII(pp. 138-43). Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc.
Slaney, R. B., Palko-Nonemaker, D., & Alexander, R. (1981). An investigation of two measures of career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 92-103.
Slife, B. D., & Weaver, C. A. ( 1992). Depression, cognitive skill, and metacognitive skill in prob-lem solving. Cognition and Emotion, 6(1), 1-22.
Slife, B. D., Weiss, J., & Bell, T. (1985). Separability of metacognition and cognition: Problem solving in learning disabled and regular students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77 (4), 437-45.
Swanson, H . L . (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem solv-ing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 306-14.
Swanson, H . L. (1992). The relationship between metacognition and problem solving in gifted children. RoeperReview, 15 (1), 43-48.
Vansickle, R. L., & H ö g e , J. D. (1991). Higher cognitive thinking skills in social studies: Con-cepts and critiques. Theory and Research in Social Education, 19, 152-72.
Wanberg, C. R., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1992). A typology of career decision status: Validity exten-sion of the vocational deciexten-sion status model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39(1), 71-80. Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M . ( 1980). Manual: Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Forms A ùf
B). Cleveland: Harcourt, Brace,Jovanovich (Psychological Corporation).
Wellman, H . M. (1985). The origins of metacognition. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. Mackinnon
& T. G. Waller, (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition and human performance: Theoretical perspectives, (pp. 1-31). Orlando, FL: Academic Press, Inc.
Westbrook, B. W. (1980). Construct validity of the Career Decision Scale. Unpublished paper, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
About the Authors
Mr. Brent A. Symes is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Educatinal Psychology at the University of Alberta. His research interests include assessment and the application of the psy-chological theory to practice.
Dr. John Stewart is a Professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB. His teaching interests are in Counselling and his research interests centre on career development and problems of vocational decision making.
Address correspondence to: John B. Stewart, Department of Educational Foundations, Fac-ulty of Education, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB E3B 6E3 Canada. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to jstewart@unb.ca.
