1. printed by
www.postersession.com
Social Cognitive Career Theory and the Development of Interest in Research-Related Professions
Aryeh Czarka1, Mitchell Slugh2, and Jenny Isaacs, Ph.D3.
Yeshiva College, Yeshiva University, New York, NY, USA
Social-Cognitive Learning Theory (SCLT) posits that social cognitions
underlie behavior. Social-Cognitive Career Theory (Lent, Brown, &
Hackett, 1994) builds upon SCLT to understand how individuals make
career decisions. The current psychological literature is limited to studies
that examine career planning in graduate-aged students or focuses on
individuals already engaged in their careers. Therefore, these studies fail
to record key determinants of career interest because they overlook the
pivotal career decision-making that occurs during the transitional period
between childhood and entrance into the workforce. This study aimed to
explore behaviors and cognitions of college-aged students in the midst of
their preparation for the professional world and focused on the
development of research-related careers. We hypothesized that research
environment would influence research-related self-efficacy and outcome
expectations, which in turn would have an effect on research interest,
which ultimately would impact career goals. A sample of 99 participants,
ages 18-23 from a private university, completed a series of questionnaires
involving perceived research self-efficacy, research outcome expectations,
research interests, research goals, and research environment. Mediation
analyses demonstrated that research environment influences research
interest, but that this relationship is mediated by research outcome
expectations and by research self-efficacy. Also, research self-efficacy
and research outcome expectations influence research goals, but these
relations are significantly mediated by research interests. Consistent with
the model proposed by Lent and colleagues (1994), these findings reveal
that an individual’s environment is predictive of an individual’s
cognitions, which further influence interests and goals.
Participants
N= 99; 35 Male, 64 Female
College students from a private university, ages 18-23
Measures
Five self-report measures were used:
Research Experience and Environment (36 items): Designed to evaluate students’ perceptions of
their training experience and environment (adapted from Gelso, 1993; Fennema & Sherman, 1976).
Items are scaled to reflect the level of disagreement/agreement with the given statements on a scale
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with a higher score reflecting a more positive research
environment. Questions examined positive faculty modeling of research engagement; vicarious
learning experiences via exposure to successful mentors and role models in research settings; how
supportive and encouraging faculty, students, and the general environment are of research; positive
interpersonal experiences associated with doing research; development of the background and skills
needed to participate in research; an understanding that research can’t always be perfect and that even
small contributions are important; and positive and negative affective states associated with doing
research.
Research Self-Efficacy (42 items): Based on Bishop and Bieschke’s (1998) Research Self-Efficacy
Scale. It is used to measure students’ perceived levels of ability in various research tasks (e.g., choose
an appropriate research design, report results in written form). Respondents were asked to rate the
level of confidence they have in their ability to accomplish these tasks on a scale of 0 (no confidence)
to 100 (total confidence).
Research Outcome Expectations (20 items): Designed to assess the extent to which subjects believe
that their participation in research will bear positive outcomes (Bishop & Bieschke, 1994). Each item
contains a suggested outcome that could result from involvement in research, to which participants
rated their level of disagreement/agreement on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly
disagree). Sample item: Involvement in research would enhance my job/career opportunities.
Research Interests Scale (4 items): Determines participants’ interest in pursuing additional research
training and a career in research. Participants responded on a scale of 1 (very disinterested) to 5 (very
interested).
Research Goals Scale (4 items): Parallels the research interest scale and asks about the likelihood of
participants pursuing additional research training and a career in research. Participants were asked to
respond on a scale of 1 (definitely don’t plan on doing it) to 5 (definitely do plan on doing it).
ABSTRACT
METHODS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
 Bard, C.C., Bieschke, K.J., Herbert, J.T., & Eberz, A.B. (2000). Predicting research interest among rehabilitation counseling students and faculty.
Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 44(1), 48-55.
 Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-1182.
 Bieschke, K.J., & Bishop, R.M. (1994) Research Outcome Expectations Questionnaire. Unpublished scale.
 Bishop, R. M., & Bieschke, K. J. (1998). Applying social cognitive theory to interest in research among counseling psychology doctoral students: A
path analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 182-188.
 Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. (1976). Fennema-Sherman mathematics attitudes scales: Instrument designed to measure attitude toward the learning
of mathematics by females and males. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Center for Educational Research.
 Gelso, C. J. (1993). On the making of a scientist-practitioner: A theory of research training in professional psychology. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 24, 468-476.
Lent, R.W., Brown, S.D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and
performance. Journal of Vocational Psychology, 45, 79-122.
 Russell, S.H., Hancock, M.P. & McCullough, J. (2007). The pipeline: Benefits of undergraduate research experiences. Science, 27, 548-549.
Social-Cognitive Learning Theory (SCLT; Bandura, 1986) suggests that our
actions are shaped by our cognitions. Individuals draw upon their own
experience and encode the behaviors of others to formulate their perceptions of
themselves in relation to the environment.
Social-Cognitive Career theorists (SCCT; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994)
apply SCLT to a career-oriented framework in order to understand how
individuals make career decisions.
Self-efficacy and outcome expectations are seen as two of the fundamental
driving forces of behavior. Not only do these two cognitions shape our
behavior, they also influence our interests and the subsequent goals we set for
ourselves. Self-efficacy is defined as an individual’s perception of his/her
ability to perform a particular task. Outcome expectations reflect the
anticipated outcomes of doing that task. Both self-efficacy and outcome
expectations are associated with career interests.
Perceptions of the research training environment have been found to be a
robust predictor of research self-efficacy (e.g., Bishop & Bieschke, 1998) and
research productivity. The research training environment and research self-
efficacy have been shown to predict research outcome expectations (Bishop &
Bieschke, 1998). In turn, research outcome expectations have been found to
predict research interests (Bard, Bieschke, Herbert, & Eberz, 2000).
Most of the current literature that examines these links is limited to the study
of individuals who are in graduate schools or of those who have already
obtained jobs. An important turning point for career preparation and decision
making is during young adulthood. For instance, results from a national study
(Russell, Hancock, & McCullough, 2007) show that positive undergraduate
research experiences are associated with increases in research knowledge,
interest, confidence and an increased likelihood of pursuing a Ph.D.
We hypothesized that a student’s research environment would influence
research-related self-efficacy and outcome expectations, which in turn would
have an effect on research interests. These research interests were hypothesized
to ultimately impact career goals.
INTRODUCTION
The results of the study suggest that an individual’s perception of his/her research environment during
undergraduate years may influence subsequent research interest. Importantly, this relationship is mediated by
research self-efficacy and by research outcome expectations.
Additionally, the study revealed that research self-efficacy and research outcome expectations are
associated with research goals, but these relations are largely indirect and mediated through research interest.
Consistent with the model proposed by Lent and colleagues (1994), these findings reveal that an
individual’s environment is predictive of an individual’s cognitions, which further influence career interests
and goals.
These results importantly focus on students at a time prior to their entry into their careers. It is during this
pivotal time that individuals are in the process of making crucial decisions about their prospective career
paths.
An understanding of the reasons why students pursue research-related professions is particularly valuable
considering the need for talented and capable researchers in a number of important scientific fields.
By focusing on improving the undergraduate research experience, educators may be able to influence their
students to develop positive research-related self-efficacy and outcome expectations, and eventually, to
consider important research-related professions.
Future research should investigate the obtainment of the anticipated career goals that students
reported.
RESULTS
Using the guidelines established by Baron and Kenny (1986), mediation analyses were executed
and then Sobel’s tests were conducted to test the significance of the indirect effects.
Research environment predicted research interest, but that relation was largely mediated by research
outcome expectations (z = 2.73, p <.01; Fig. 1), and partially by research self-efficacy (z = 1.88, p =
.06; Fig. 2). Numbers presented in italics represent βs after controlling for the effects of the mediator.
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Research Experience
and Environment
Research Outcome
Expectations
Research Interests
Research Self-
Efficacy
Research Experience
and Environment
Research Interests
**.30 ***.65
*.22→ .03
**.51 ***.35
*.22→ .09
 Research self-efficacy (Fig. 3) and research outcome expectations (Fig. 4) predicted research goals, but
these relations were largely mediated by research interests (z = 2.93, p < .01; z = 6.51, p < .01). Numbers
presented in italics represent βs after controlling for the effects of the mediator.
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Research Interests
Research Self-
Efficacy
Research Goals
Research Interests
Research GoalsResearch Outcome
Expectations
***.35 ***.84
*.39→ .10
***.65 ***.84
***.66→ .20
* p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
RESULTS (cont.)
* p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
1E-mail: abtczarka@gmail.com
2E-mail: mitchslugh@gmail.com
3E-mail: jisaacs@yu.edu; Phone: 212-960-5400 ext 5912; Address: Yeshiva College,
Yeshiva University, Dept. of Psychology, 500 W. 185th St., New York, NY 10033

2. Emerging Trends in Bullying in Co-educational Jewish Day Schools
Joseph Winkler, Aryeh Czarka, Rona Novick, Ph.D., Jenny Isaacs, Ph.D.
Institute for University School Partnership, Azrieli Graduate School of Jewish Education and Administration
and Yeshiva College Psychology Department
Yeshiva University
School is a social experience, and can contribute to children’s sense of self
and belonging, or fuel self-doubt and reinforce loneliness. A growing
body of research demonstrates the clear connection between academic and
social-behavioral issues (Goldberg, 2005). One of the most devastating
and prevalent aspects of school culture in the upper elementary and middle
school years is bullying. The National Resource Center for Safe Schools
(NRCSS, 2001) estimates suggest 30% of American students are regularly
involved in bullying, as bullies, victims or both, leading to significantly
lower achievement scores than bystanders.
Jewish schools are unique in their clear mission to accomplish more
than academic excellence. They strive to inculcate students with Torah
values, and develop behaviors consistent with the Torah’s teachings. The
social climate and culture of the Jewish school has received little research
attention. The specific phenomenon of bullying in Jewish schools, has to
date, not been studied.
RESULTS:. The results include: behavior (rates of bullying, students’ responses to bullying), attitudes and
cognitions (those that contribute to bullying, problem solving styles) and school environment (students’
perception of adults responsiveness to bullying, and overall perceived school safety). In all areas,
comparisons across genders and grade levels were completed.
Gender Analyses
Frequency Rates
• 9.2% of the students reported acting as a bully at least once in the week prior to the survey
• Boys reported acting as the bully more frequently (13% vs. 4.9%)
• 13.2% of the students reported being bullied at least once in the week prior to the survey
• Boys reported being victimized more frequently (16.2% vs. 9.8%)
Behavior
• Boys had higher rates of being instigator
or ring-leader (t= -4.21, p <.0001)
• Boys more likely to report assisting bully
or join in (t=-3.12 p=.002)
• Girls more likely to defend victims (t= 4.96 p <.0001)
• Girls less likely to get involved (t=2.01 p=.037
Attitude and Problem Solving
• Boys displayed less pro-social and anti-bullying attitudes (t= p =.05 )
• Boys had a broader and more inclusive definition of bullying (t= -3.05 p=.002)
• Girls reported using more pro-social problem solving (t= 2.51 p = .039)
• Boys reported using more aggressive problem solving. (t= -4.10 p< .0001)
School Environment
• Boys perceived adults in the school environment as less responsive to bullying than girls did. (t= 2.93
p=.003)
• Overall, boys reported feeling significantly safer in school than girls. (t= -4.95 p<.0001)
Grade Analyses
Frequency Rates
•There was a complex pattern of bullying across the grades of middle school, with 5th graders reporting
very low incidence of bullying, perhaps because of their limited ability to define it. Sixth and eight graders
had higher frequencies reported than seventh graders. Boulton, M. J, Trueman, M. & Flemington, I. (2002) Associations between secondary
School pupils’definitions of bullying, attitudes towards bullying, and tendencies to engage in bullying: age and sex differences. Educational Studies, 28 (4), 353-
370.
Committee for Children (2001). Steps to Respect: Program Guide. Accessed from
www.cfchildren.org, November, 2007.
Goldberg, S. J. (2005). Hebrew reading Difficulties and social exclusion: A path to
Aggressive behavior. Jewish Leadership Journal, Lookstein Center for Jewish
Education in the Diaspora, Fall. Retrieved August 25, 2006 from http://www.lookstein.org/online_journal.php
National Resource Center for Safe Schools. (1999). Recognizing and Preventing
Bullying. (Fact Sheet No. 4). Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved on September 2, 2006 from
http://www.safetyzone.org/publications/fact4_index.html
Pakaslahti, L. and Keltikangas-Jarvinen, L. (2000). Comparison of peer, teacher and
Self-assessments on adolescent direct and indirect aggression. Educational
Psychology, 20(2), 177- 190.
Salmivalli, C. (1995). Participant Role Qeustionnaire (Revised). Turku, Finland:
Univesity of Turku, Department of Psychology.
1. What are the rates and characteristics of bullying in Jewish
day schools, and are they similar to those reported in public,
secular schools.
2. Are there gender differences in who bullies, who has attitudes
supportive of bullying and what bystander strategies are used?
3. Are there grade level differences in who bullies, who has
attitudes supportive of bullying, and which bystander strategies
are used?
4. How do students in Jewish day schools view adult
responsiveness and the overall safety of their school
environment?
BACKGROUND
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
Percentage of Students Reporting Being Victimized At Least Once
Weekly
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Female Male All Genders
Percdentage of Students Reporting Acting as Bully At Least Once
Weekly
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Females Males All Genders
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Students (399 girls and 418 boys) in five US Jewish day schools were
surveyed with a variety of instruments that assessed students’ perceived
safety in school and perceptions of teachers’ responsiveness (School
Environment Scale, Committee for Children, 2001), bullying reports, attitudes
towards bullying (Boulton, Trueman, & Flemington, 2002), self reports of
problem solving (Pakaslahti, &Keltikangas-Jarvinen, 2000) and behavior in
bullying situations (Participant Role Questionnaire, Salmivalli, 1995).
Bullying and victimization was calculated as a student reporting
being bullied or acting as a bully at least once in the prior week. Factor
and total scores were computed as prescribed by the instrument authors for
all other scales. Differences between mean scores of girls and boys were
evaluated with t tests, and differences between the means of students in the
4 grades were evaluated with one way ANOVA’s. Tukey post-hoc
evaluations were employed to determine differences between means when
the main effect of grade was significant.
Percentage of students Reporting Acting as Bully At Least Once
Weekly By Grade
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
5th 6th 7th 8th
Percdentage of Students Reporting Victimization at Least Once
Weekly by Grade
0
5
10
15
20
25
5th 6th 7th 8th
Behavior
• Eighth graders reported significantly more bullying than other grades
(F = 4.7, p = .003)
•In bullying situations, 5th graders significantly more likely to comfort victims
than 7th or 8th graders (F = 4.68, p=.003).
Attitudes
• Older students held significantly more pro-social and anti-bullying attitudes.
• Anti-bullying attitudes; F = 3.4, p= .018
• Supportive views of victims; F = 4.37, p = .005
• Belief in taking action against bullying; F = 2.9, p = .04
School Environment
• Older students perceive school as safer, and feel adults and students are more
responsive to bullying
• Safety of school environment;
F = 11.9, p < .0001
• Adult responsiveness;
F = 11.8, p < .0001
• Bystander responsiveness;
F = 10.9, p < .0001
The current research demonstrated bullying occurs in Jewish middle schools with
frequencies similar to those seen in secular schools.
Gender differences also followed the patterns seen in secular schools, with boys
exhibiting more bullying, more attitudes conducive to bullying, more aggressive
problem-solving, a greater likelihood of serving as a bully’s assistant, or joining in
in some way, and felt adults were less responsive to bullying than did girls.
Ironically, boys viewed school as safer than girls.
Grade level differences were a bit less straight-forward, but older students were
less involved in bullying and had more pro-social attitudes and problem solving.
Although the research is limited by reliance on self-report data, multiple
instruments used and convergent results suggests that bullying is a phenomenon in
Jewish schools quite similar to their secular counterparts. Research to both further
understand and address bullying among Jewish students is clearly indicated.
1.65
1.7
1.75
1.8
1.85
Male femaleScale
1=never help, 2=usually not help, 3=Will help once in a while, 4=Usually will help, 5- Definitely
Self Report of Prosocial Behavior
PerceivedSafetyof SchoolEnvironment
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
5th 6th 7th 8th
Scale
1= NotSafe
2= Notverysafe
3= Safe