VOCATIONAL INDECISION (JOHN HOLLAND)

Journal of Counseling Psychology
1977, Vol. 24, No. 5, 404-414
Vocational Indecision: More Evidenceand Speculation
John L. Holland
Johns Hopkins University
Joan E. Holland
Iowa State University
This study was planned to clarify the controversy about the characteristics
attributed to students who are decided or undecided about a vocational goal.
Samples of 1,005 high school juniors and 692 college juniors were assessed
with measures of personality, decision-making ability, interests, and voca-
tional attitude. Comparisons ofundecided and decided students indicate that
they are alike on most measures, but substantial and significant differences
were found for the Identity and Vocational Attitude scales. In addition,
student explanations of indecisiveness form an internally consistent scale.
This scale is, in turn, significantly correlated with measures of Anomy
(positive), Identity (negative), Interpersonal Competency (negative), and
some Career Maturity (Career Maturity Inventory) variables. The patternof
present and past significant findings implies that it may be useful to interpret
some kinds of indecision as the outcome of a proposed indecisive disposition.
The chief practical application appears to be the need to see undecided
students as multiple subtypes who need different personal-vocational treat-
ments.
Attempts to comprehend the vocational
decisiveness of some students and the in-
decisiveness ofothers are characterized by
conflicting findings, negative findings, or
negligible findings. Although vocationally
decided and undecided students have been
assessed in many ways and with a vast
range of variables (Ashby, Wall, & Osi-
pow, 1966;Baird, 1968,1969; Elton &Rose,
1971; Holland & Nichols, 1964; Lunneborg,
1975; Nelson & Nelson, 1940;Osipow,Car-
ney, & Barak, 1976), few clear or compel-
ling differences emerge. Instead, the most
striking outcomes ofthese studies are that
decided and undecided high school and col-
lege students are much more alike than
different and that the relatively few differ-
ences found are conflicting and confusing.
The confusing evidential situation is
compounded by divergent speculations
about the origins of vocational indecision
(Crites, 1969;Galinsky &Fast, 1966;Good-
stein, 1965; Holland, 1973; Osipow et al.,
1976; Rose & Elton, 1971; Tyler, 1961). In
The authors are indebted to Gary D. Gottfredson
and Linda S. Gottfredson for editorial and data-
processing assistance.
Requests for reprints should be sent to John L.
Holland, Department of Social Relations, Johns
Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218.
addition, there is some experimental sup-
port for each of these diverse ideas. And,
without being clear about our characteri-
zations of undecided people or the origins
of their difficulty, a wide range of treat-
ments are being applied (Crites, 1973;
McGowan, 1974; Mendonca & Siess, 1976)
with some success observed for each.
The present study is another attempt to
characterize "decided" and "undecided"
high school and collegestudents by assess-
ing the participants with scales, invento-
ries, and a questionnaire concerned with
decision making. The data were analyzed
to answer four questions:
1. In what ways are decided and unde-
cided people alike or different?
2. What are the most and least popular
"explanations" of indecision given by stu-
dents who say they are undecided about or
dissatisfied with their vocational aspira-
tion?
3. Is the number of explanations ex-
pressed by undecided students related to
any competency, personality, or interest
variables?
4. Is the number of explanations ex-
pressed by students who are unsure, dis-
satisfied, or undecidedrelated to anycom-
petency, personality, or interest variables?
404

VOCATIONAL INDECISION 405
By using measures ofnew and old varia-
bles to answer these questions, it was as-
sumed that a clearer interpretation ofvo-
cational indecision might becomepossible.
Method
Samples of 1,005high school juniors and 692 col-
legejuniors wereadministered the Life PlansInven-
tory, which asked about vocational decisions and
contained the following scales: the Vocational Atti-
tude and the OccupationalInformation scales from
Crites' (1973) Career Maturity Inventory (CMI), the
Interpersonal Competency Scale (Holland & Baird,
1968a); the Preconscious Activity Scale (Holland &
Baird, 1968b), the Anomy Scale (McClosky &
Schaar, 1965), and the Identity Scale (Holland,
Gottfredson, & Nafziger, 1975). All students also
took the Self-Directed Search (SDS; Holland, 1972),
which was the source of several indexesand scales:
Consistency and Differentiation of the SDS profile,
Profile Similarity (the average correlation among
the five SDS subprofiles), the Sum of the Self-Esti-
mates score (the sum of the numerical values indi-
cated by a participant on the 12 self-ratings), and
the Average Translation score (an index of the de-
gree towhich a person's vocational aspirations agree
with the SDS assessment-shown in Holland, 1972;
see Table 3). A subsample of high school juniors
(216 boys and 161 girls) also took the entire CMI and
the Life Plans Inventory. The tables in this study
contain fewer students than the total sample as-
sessed eaflier, because many students failed to re-
spond to one or more items about undecidedness and
dissatisfaction, or failed to indicate their sex. In
every instance, all available data havebeen used.
These assessment devices and the sampling have
been more fully described elsewhere (Holland,
Gottfredson, & Nafziger, 1975), and a technical re-
port (Holland, Gottfredson, & Nafziger, 1973) pro-
vides additional information. The samples are not
representative of any well-defined population. The
goal was to secure persons broadly distributed
across personality types and geographical locations.
Samples camefrom eight high schools in four states
and eight colleges in six states. School means for
fathers' educationallevel varied from 2.2 to 5.2 on a
7-point scale, ranging from completion of eighth
grade or less (1) to obtaining a graduate or profes-
sional degree(7).
In the following analyses, it appeared useful to
try two different definitions of indecision: The first
was a simpletrue-false criterion and the second was
a multiple-choice or more differentiated criterion.
The two groups formed by these criteria have a75%
overlap among high school students but only a50%
overlap among college students. The analyses indi-
cate that the two criteria of indecision produced
similar results.
Results
As a first step, decided and undecided
students were compared on all variables.
In these comparisons, decided equals say-
ing "true" to the following statement: "I
have made a tentative occupational choice
or I am currently employedfull time." Ta-
bles 1 and 2 show the results for high
school and college students.
Tables 1 and 2 indicate that undecided
and decided students are alike on most
variables. Despite the large samples, only
the Identity, Short Vocational Attitude,
and Artistic Summary scales produce sta-
tistically significant differences for both
boys and girls in the high school sample;
and only the Interpersonal Competency
and Identity scales yield significant differ-
ences for both men and women in the col-
lege sample. Finally, only differences in
the Identity Scale replicate across all four
groups.
The results imply that undecided stu-
dents lack a clear sense of identity. In
responding to the items in the 15-item
Identity Scale, they said: "I change my
opinion of myself a lot" (true). "I can't
really say what my interests are" (true).
"If someone asked, I could describe my
personality with considerable accuracy"
(false). "I have a clear picture of my abili-
ties and talents-what I am good at"
(false). "I knowwhat kind oflife I want for
myself" (false). "I never feel the same
about myself from week to week" (true).
These and similar items express a shifting
self-picture and an inability to assess one-
self accurately or to relate personal char-
acteristics to occupational possibilities.
The other differentiating variables—Vo-
cational Attitude (CMI), Interpersonal
Competency, Sum of the Self-Estimates
score (SDS), and Artistic Summary Scale
(SDS)-usually appear consonant with
this interpretation. Positive associations
are expected between identity, maturity,
interpersonal competency, and self-confi-
dence, but why a high Artistic Summary
score is associated with being undecided is
not clear.
The next analyses were performed for
students who expressed uncertainty, dis-
satisfaction, or indecision according to the
following item:
How satisfied are you with your present

406 JOHN L. HOLLAND AND JOAN E. HOLLAND
Table 1: Personal Characteristics of Decided and Undecided High School Students
Consistency8
Differentiation"
Interpersonal Competency11
Preconscious Activity"
Identity"
Anomy15
Short Vocational Attitudeb
Long Vocational Attitude0
Self-Appraisal0
Occupational Information0
Goal Selection0
Planning0
Problem Solving0
Occupational Information"
Realistic Summary score"
Investigative Summary
score"
Artistic Summary score"
Social Summary score"
Enterprising Summary
score"
Conventional Summary
score"
Sum of self-estimates score"
Average translation scoreb
Profile similarity"
Father's education
Consistency"
Differentiation"
Interpersonal Competency"
Identity"
Anomy"
Short Vocational Attitude"
Self-Appraisal0
Goal Selection0
Planning0
Problem Solving0
score"
score"
score"
Average translation score"
Profile similarity"
Father's education
M
2.11
11.23
12.14
16.91
11.80**
4.73
12.20*
35.53
12.10
16.59
11.30
12.86
10.58
16.01
9.10
7.24
3.82
8.52
6.33
3.97
47.75
2.62
.45
2.76
2.42
11.83
12.26*
21.36
11.74**
3.97
13.26**
39.67**
15.28
17.80
14.21
15.18
12.88
16.79
2.57
6.16
6.43
11.80
5.28
5.60
49.16**
2.73*
.52
3.53
Decided
SD
Boys
.80
2.28
3.30
5.18
2.69
2.19
1.96
5.78
4.37
3.76
4.04
4.38
3.69
3.55
4.50
4.20
3.17
3.21
3.38
3.07
8.91
1.03
.23
1.69
Girls
.56
2.06
3.26
5.18
2.67
2.36
1.77
3.66
2.48
1.97
2.80
2.76
2.62
2.75
2.51
3.89
3.58
2.59
2.77
4.55
7.60
1.03
.21
2.02
n
143
143
139
132
139
132
140
58
58
58
57
57
57
140
143
143
143
143
143
143
142
136
143
143
303
303
287
272
295
282
296
61
61
61
61
61
61
302
303
303
303
303
303
303
295
287
303
303
M
2.19
10.72
11.98
17.84
9.98
4.92
11.72
33.95
12.53
16.04
11.00
12.43
9.42
16.12
8.27
7.29
4.73*
9.45*
6.96
4.46
47.24
2.38
.45
2.99
2.46
11.54
11.69
20.87
9.68
4.25
12.66
36.22
14.63
17.17
13.38
14.54
12.27
16.43
2.83
5.55
7.11*
12.08
5.32
5.78
47.25
2.50
.50
3.58
Undecided
SD
.74
2.39
3.22
5.25
3.11
2.18
1.99
5.41
3.79
3.35
3.86
4.52
3.66
3.04
4.05
4.09
3.80
2.85
3.35
3.69
9.32
.93
.22
1.86
.58
2.03
3.04
5.06
3.38
2.10
1.86
4.84
2.16
2.06
3.50
2.87
2.44
2.90
2.42
3.26
3.68
2.40
2.80
4.26
7.47
.91
.20
1.98
n
139
139
137
131
139
135
139
83
83
83
82
81
81
139
139
139
139
139
139
139
136
127
139
139
219
219
206
192
207
199
214
59
59
59
58
59
59
218
219
219
219
219
219
219
215
200
219
219
Note. Indicated are the significant t-test results between decided and undecided students ofthe same sex.
" Scales or derivatives included in the Self-Directed Search. *p < .05.
" Scales included in the Life Plans Inventory. **p <.01.
0
Scales included in the Career Maturity Inventory.

Table 2
Personal Characteristics of Decided and Undecided College Students
Consistency"
Differentiation"
Identity"
Anomy"
score"
score"
score"
Sum of self-estimates score3
Profile similarity"
Father's education
Consistency"
Differentiation"
Identity"
Anomy"
score"
score"
score"
Sum of self-estimates score8
Profile similarity"
Father's education
M
2.51
11.84
13.16*
17.54*
12.69**
2.45
13.59**
19.08
7.52
7.81
3.57
8.38
6.46
4.37
52.35
2.50
.52
3.72
2.58
11.93
13.13**
20.84
12.86**
2.42
14.07
19.03*
2.62
6.09
7.36
12.15
4.73
4.51
50.52**
2.87*
.53
4.12
Decided
SD
Men
.68
2.18
3.29
5.80
2.30
2.10
1.57
1.62
4.56
4.23
3.57
3.55
4.04
3.87
7.32
.98
.20
1.66
Women
.54
1.91
3.10
6.04
2.38
1.92
1.43
1.47
2.48
3.87
3.58
2.53
2.86
3.70
6.90
.87
.20
1.74
n
275
275
271
256
266
262
269
275
275
275
275
275
275
275
273
256
275
275
307
307
294
281
298
286
299
305
307
307
307
307
307
307
303
295
307
307
M
2.42
11.49
12.08
19.27
11.15
2.92
12.82
18.78
6.76
7.63
4.88**
9.40*
6.84
3.57
50.98
2.30
.49
4.00
2.68
11.73
10.85
21.79
10.82
2.81
13.72
18.54
3.29
5.85
8.44
11.32
4.27
4.44
46.71
2.57
.49
4.58
Undecided
SD
.72
2.26
3.85
5.66
2.56
2.09
1.80
1.79
4.34
4.35
3.44
3.47
3.98
3.38
7.27
.94
.20
1.78
.52
2.58
3.46
5.90
2.98
1.76
1.62
1.58
2.92
3.40
3.47
2.64
3.26
3.79
7.14
.81
.22
1.87
n
67
67
65
60
65
63
65
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
66
62
67
67
41
41
40
38
40
37
40
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
38
41
41
Note. Indicated are the significant t-iest results between undecided and decided students ofthe same sex.
" Scales or derivatives included in the Self-Directed Search.
" Scales included in the Life Plans Inventory.
* p < .05.
**p < .01.
job or your choice ofan occupation? (Check
one of the following.)
— 1. Well satisfied with choice
— 2. Satisfied, but have a few doubts
— 3. Not sure
— 4. Dissatisfied, but intend to remain
- 5. Very dissatisfied and intend to
change
- 6. Undecidedabout my future career
In the questionnaire, only those stu-
dents who checked alternatives 3, 4, 5, or 6

Table 3
Students' Explanations for Being Unsure, Dissatisfied, or Undecided about a Vocational Choice
High school College
Explanation Boys
(n = 115-119)
Girls
(n = 182-200)
Men
(n = 84-86)
Women
(n = 67-72)
I am not sure that my present
occupational choice or job is right for
me. 77.39 71.43 85.53 76.12
I don't know enough aboutemployment
opportunities. 73.95 77.00 61.63 73.61
I don't know enough about the special
kinds of people who enter different
occupations. 73.11 73.20 58.82 64.28
I don't know enough about what workers
do in various occupations. 71.43 64.82 50.00 58.33
I am uncertain about the occupationI
could perform well. 67.80 78.89 47.67 70.83
I am uncertain about the occupationsI
would enjoy. 65.55 70.71 77.91 74.65
I am sometimes interested in occupations
which I am not qualified to do well. 63.02 61.14 70.93 63.38
I don't have to make a decisionright now. 62.71 56.34 67.44 58.57
I doubtifI have the ability to makea good
vocational decision right now. 52.94 57.65 34.52 44.28
I don't know what my major strengths and
weaknesses are. 52.94 45.68 31.76 41.67
I don't have the moneyto do what Iwould
really like to do. 52.94 34.18 40.70 24.28
If I had to make an occupationalchoice
right now, I am afraid I would make a
bad choice. 42.02 48.95 29.41 22.86
I am uncertain about my ability to finish
the necessary education or training. 38.14 32.65 19.77 22.22
Note. Numbers given are percentages. Values forn vary from item to item, because students did not always
respond to every item.
were asked to respond true or false to each
of the statements shown in Table 3 (poten-
tial explanations oftheir indecision or dis-
satisfaction). Table 3 indicates the per-
centage ofthe student samples responding
true to each statement.
Males and females endorse these expla-
nations in about the same rank order.
Many of the statements in these tables
resemble the items in the Identity Scale—
especially the expressions of doubt about
self-perceptions ofabilities, strengths, and
weaknesses, lack of occupational knowl-
edge, and decision-making ability. Table 3
also suggests that there are many compe-
tent but undecided people whose environ-
mental situation does not require a deci-
sion at this time: Of the students polled,
56% to 67%said, "I don't have to make a
decision right now."
The next analyses were performed to
learn if the variables used to distinguish
decided from undecided students would
also serve to distinguish degrees of indeci-
sion among students who were undecided
by the true-false criterion. In this instance
the sheer number of "explanations" indi-
cated by an undecided student was used to
measure degrees of indecision. Table 4
shows how the 13 reasons correlate with
the total number of reasons across the
samples of male and female high school
and college students. The Kuder-Richard-
son 20values for this scale across the four
samples of high school and college males
and females are .86, .84, .78, and .63, re-
spectively.
Table 5 shows the correlations between
the number of explanations and the as-
sessment variables used earlier. The Iden-
tity Scale correlates with total reasons
across all four groups. The greater the
number ofexplanations a student offers for
undecidedness, the lower the Identity

Table 4
Correlations Between Individual and Total Number of Reasons for Being Unsure,Dissatisfied, or
Undecided About a Vocational Choice
Total no. reasons
Explanation High school College
(n
Boys
= 146-176)
Girls
(n = 186-229)
Men
(n = 84-94)
Women
(n = 62-79)
I am not sure that my present
occupational choice or job is right for
me. .52*
I don't know enough about employment
opportunities. .40*
I don't know enough about the special
kinds of people who enter different
occupations. .46*
I don't know enough about what workers
do in various occupations. .42*
I am uncertain about the occupations I
could perform well. .58*
I am uncertain about the occupation I
would enjoy. .36*
I am sometimes interested in occupations
which I am often not qualified to do
well. .29*
I don't haveto make adecision right now.a
.09
I doubt ifI have the ability to make a good
vocational decision right now. .41*
I don't knowwhat my major strengths and
weaknesses are. .50*
I don't have the money to dowhat Iwould
really like to do." .06
If I had to make an occupational choice
right nowI am afraid I would make a
bad choice. .48*
I am uncertain about my ability to finish
the necessary education or training. .30*
.43*
.40*
.43*
.43*
.48*
.52*
.33*
.17*
.55*
.44*
.11
.57*
.34*
.33*
.62*
.60*
.57*
.51*
.41*
.40*
.12
.46*
.56*
.17
.57*
.37*
.35*
.35*
.52*
.42*
.67*
.35*
.31*
.00
.42*
.30*
-.01
.43*
.36*
Note. Values for n vary from item to- item, because students did not always respond to every item.
a
The omission of these items should increase the reliability of this scale.
*p < .05.
score (rs range from -.35 to -.57). Again,
the Interpersonal Competency and Occu-
pational Information (CMI) scales differ-
entiate for some but not all samples. The
Interpersonal Competency Scale is nega-
tively correlated with the number of ra-
tionalizations a student gives for undecid-
edness. The Occupational Information
Scale (CMI)correlates positively and un-
expectedly with the number ofstudent ex-
planations of indecision. Similarly, the
number ofstudent explanations also corre-
lates positively with several other CMI
scales in some samples: Goal Selection and
Problem Solving. These latter results are
puzzling.
The correlations in Table 5 were then
recomputed for students who were unsure,
dissatisfied, or undecided about a career
(the same criterion usedto define the sam-
ples in Tables 3 and 4) to form Table 6.
The use of a differentiated definition of
dissatisfaction and indecision in Table 6
results in 25 rather than 15 statistically
significant correlations. Equally impor-
tant, the trends are more readily inter-
pretable. In three offour groups,the corre-
lations between the Identity Scale and the
number of explanations are larger. The
Interpersonal Competency Scale now rep-
licates across all four groups;three of four
correlations are larger than before and sta-
tistically significant. The Anomy Scale is
now significantly related to the numberof
student explanations in three of four
groups. Likewise, the Sum of Self-Esti-

Table 5
Correlations Between the Number of Explanations and Assessment Variables
for "Undecided" Students
High School College
Variable Boys Girls Men Women
Consistency"
Differentiation"
"
Preconscious Activity11
Identity"
Anomyb
Long Vocational Attitude'
Self-Appraisal0
Goal Selection'
Planning0
Problem Solving0
InvestigativeSummary
score"
score"
score"
Profile similarity"
Father's education
r
01
04
-21**
01
-43**
19*
-15
-17
-07
-07
-18
02
-02
08
02
12
01
-04
-13
03
-15
03
09
02
n
139
139
137
131
139
135
139
83
83
83
82
81
81
139
139
139
139
139
139
139
136
127
139
139
r
01
04
-15*
09
-39**
02
-10
-05
07
27*
44**
17
26*
19**
-04
09
-01
04
02
-09
-09
01
08
10
n
219
219
206
192
207
199
214
59
59
59
58
59
59
218
219
219
219
219
219
219
215
200
219
219
r
01
-01
-09
14
-57**
-07
-12
08
-06
02
02
-05
01
06
-18
-20
-08
03
n
67
67
65
60
65
63
65
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
66
62
67
67
r
22
-03
-27
06
-35*
41*
-12
40**
-15
10
38*
-35*
-10
-11
-10
06
01
23
n
41
41
40
38
40
37
40
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
38
41
41
Note. Decimals are omitted.
" Scales included in the Life Plans Inventory.
c
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
mates (SDS)and the Average Translation
scores are negatively correlated with the
number of explanations; whereas earlier,
both variables had insignificant correla-
tions with the number of explanations.
The CMI scales appear to be unaffected by
the redefinition ofthe undecided group.
Discussion
The results suggest that high schooland
college students who characterize them-
selves as "decided" or "undecided" differ in
terms of their sense of identity and voca-
tional maturity, but they donot differ con-
sistently on most other characteristics.
This main finding is strengthened by the
explanations that students give for their
undecided state. These explanations are
reminiscent of some items in the Identity
and Vocational Attitude scales. In addi-
tion, and perhaps most importantly, the
correlations between the degree of indeci-
sion (the number ofexplanations a student
checked) for undecided or dissatisfied stu-
dents (Table 6) and the Identity, Interper-
sonal Competency, Anomy, VocationalAt-
titude, Sum ofSelf-Estimates, and the Av-
erage Translation scores, scales, or in-
dexes form a consistent cluster.
This cluster is compatible with the out-
comes of many earlier studies and much
speculation. In a closely related study,
Kelso (1976) compared decided and unde-
cided high school students (1,015boys and
1,247 girls), using the 10items ofthe Iden-

Table 6
Correlations Between the Number of Explanations and Assessment Variables for Unsure,
Dissatisfied, or Undecided Students
High school College
Variable Boys Girls Men Women
Consistency8
Differentiation"
Identity"
Anomy11
Short Vocational Attitude11
Self-Appraisal0
Occupational Information'
Goal Selection0
Planning0
Problem Solving0
"
score"
Artistic Summary score3
Social Summary score8
score8
score"
Average translation scoreb
Profile similarity"
Father's education
r
03
-06
-18*
10
-35**
30**
-16
-29*
-12
-19
-01
02
-13
02
06
-04
-04
-07
-08
05
-10
-21*
-01
07
n
123
123
119
115
123
120
123
69
69
69
68
68
68
122
123
123
123
123
123
123
122
113
123
123
r
-14*
-01
-26**
05
_41**
11
-14*
-30*
-10
39**
34*
15
30*
20**
-01
03
-14
-01
-01
-01
-17*
07
-03
05
n
201
201
183
171
186
179
194
54
54
54
54
54
54
199
201
201
201
201
201
201
196
183
201
201
r
-10
-19
-32**
-03
-60**
34**
-09
-06
03
00
05
-03
-20
10
-27*
-28*
-26*
14
n
86
86
84
77
83
81
82
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
81
86
86
r
-07
-16
-40**
02
-45**
32*
-29*
13
-01
09
06
-16
-05
23
-21
-08
-14
-05
n
72
72
68
63
70
61
69
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
70
67
72
72
Note. Decimals are omitted.
b
Scales included in the Life Plans Inventory.
0
*p < .05.
> p < .01.
tity Scale included in the present 15-item
scale in this study along with the other
scales ofthe Psychosocial Maturity Inven-
tory (Greenberger, Josselson, Knerr, &
Knerr, 1975) and found that the Identity
Scale discriminated between choosers and
nonchoosers. In addition, other scalecom-
parisons implythat nonchooserslackwork
involvement, self-reliance, and communi-
cation skills. According to other scales,
they were also less involved with peers,
family, and schools.
Other studies indicate that the Voca-
tional Attitude Scale is usually positively
related to being decided, involved, and
concerned with planning (Crites, 1973).
The content of the Identity Scale is con-
cerned with a clear and stable self-picture
of personality, interests, and talents; the
Identity Scale also has moderately positive
correlations with the Interpersonal Com-
petency Scale and moderately negative
correlations with the Anomy Scale (Hol-
land, Note 1). In their validation of the
Anomy Scale, McClosky and Schaar (1965)
have provided substantial evidence that
their scale taps a broad range ofpersonal
variables associated with alienation and
pathology including its correlations with
the Manifest Anxiety Scale. Conse-
quently, the moderately high anxiety
scores obtained for undecided students
(Kimes &Troth, 1974)are consistent with
the present results. Likewise, the findings
that undecided students tend to drop out,
earn fewer credits, and get lower grades

(Elton & Rose, 1971; Lunneborg, 1975)
seem consistent with our findings of An-
omy and the low involvement observed
among undecided students by other inves-
tigators.
In an earlier study, Hollandet al. (1975)
found no relation between the quality of
student decision making and being de-
cided or undecided-an unexpected find-
ing. In the present study, the quality of
decision making (described earlier as
translation ability) for males is related to
the number of student explanations ofde-
cision-making difficulties when only un-
certain or dissatisfied students are consid-
ered.
Most recently, Osipow et al. (1976) de-
veloped a 19-item scale ofeducational-vo-
cational undecidedness that resembles the
13-item scale formed here from student ex-
planations of undecidedness or dissatisfac-
tion. A review ofboth scales suggests sub-
stantial common content—lack of confi-
dence about decision-making skills and
lack of self- and environmental informa-
tion—although some items are unique to
each scale. Osipowet al. developedexpla-
nations ofundecidedness by a factor analy-
sis of student self-reports that results in
four factors: need for structure, perceived
external barriers, positive choice conflict,
and personal conflict. The present study
complements this earlier work by tying
undecidedness, and student self-reports
thereof, to a wide range ofpsychological
variables with substantial explanatory
value. Our results suggest that the stu-
dent explanations form a single internally
consistent scale; the factor analysis byOsi-
pow et al. of a similar scale implies multi-
ple scales.
Finally, and unfortunately, the voca-
tional indecision literature is littered with
other findings that are not easily inte-
grated with the present results. A review
of the whole literature is required to put
everything in place, although reviews by
Crites (1969) and Osipow(1973) are largely
consistent with the present findings.
Perhaps we have been too concerned
with finding a few explicit variables and
too little concerned with discovering the
broad patterns suggested by a host of
poorly defined variables. It may be useful
to consider undecidedpeopleas comprising
multiple subtypes rather than a single
type (Crites, 1969).
For example, more than 50%of the un-
decided students (see Table 3) reported, "I
don't have to make a decision right now."
In an earlier study (Holland, Note 2), 42%
and 54% of the males and females in a
national sample of 2-year college students
(N = 22,000) said: "The main reason I am
undecided about my vocation is: It doesn't
seem important to make a decision yet." In
an Australian study, Kelso (1975) found
that realism about vocational choice was
clearly related to how soon a high school
student had to goto work. In short, a large
proportion ofundecided students are doing
what intelligent adults do—delaying some
decisions until reality arrives. Such a
strategy is not necessarily stupid, unin-
formed, or immature.
Two other subgroups may exist among
undecided people and require special voca-
tional assistance. The first group has a
slight to moderate dose of immaturity, in-
terpersonal incompetency, anxiety, and al-
ienation. Perhaps they comprise a quarter
of the undecideds. Finally, another
quarter ofthe undecideds may havemoder-
ate to severe cases of immaturity, incom-
petency, anxiety, and alienation.
Taken together, the results have stimu-
lated the following speculations about the
character of undecided students, the rela-
tions of their personal dispositions to deci-
sion-making processes, and some plausible
explanations why diverse vocational treat-
ments help some people but not others.
The correlates of student difficulties in
making vocational choiceexpressed in Ta-
ble 6 imply the following complexbut con-
sistent cluster of personal traits, atti-
tudes, and skills: interpersonal incompe-
tency, lack of self-confidence, lack of in-
volvement, anxiety, an unclear and shift-
ing identity, and poor decision-making
skills.
The rationale for the Anomy Scale re-
sembles this syndrome. McClosky and
Schaar (1965) conceptualize anomy as a
state of mind caused by personal factors
that impair learning and socialization.Us-

ing a large state sample (N = 1,082) and a
large national sample (N = 1,484), Mc-
Closky and Schaar demonstrate that the
Anomy Scale has.moderate positive rela-
tions with intolerance ofambiguity, rigid-
ity, lack ofself-confidence, passivity, anxi-
ety, disorganization, as well as other vari-
ables including a low level of educational
attainment.
Unfortunately, the concept of anomy
has a long and controversial history so
that its connotations are ambiguous and
conflicting for many. Consequently, it may
be useful for vocational purposes to relabel
this speculative syndrome as the indeci-
sive disposition. This disposition is seen as
the outcome of a life history in which a
person has failed to acquire the necessary
cultural involvement, self-confidence, tol-
erance for ambiguity, sense of identity,
self- and environmental knowledge to cope
with vocational decision making as well as
with other common problems.
Consequently, when treatments such as
tests, workshops, counseling, vocational
decision-making training, and occupa-
tional information are applied to students
expressing indecision, many students
make decisions or feel better because a
large portion have little or no trace of the
indecisive disposition. Those students who
are not helped are more likely to have
some or many of the personal characteris-
tics associated with the indecisive disposi-
tion. Such peopleshould be especially diffi-
cult to help because they suffer from a
complex cluster of maladaptive attitudes
and copingbehaviors that are probably not
amenable to brief vocationally oriented
treatments. We may have been misled by
assuming that indecisiveness is due to
anxiety and tension rather than a host of
additional unfavorable personal and situa-
tional forces. Likewise, immaturity fails to
capture the wide array of personal and
situational deficiencies implied by our re-
sults and those of others.
The practical applications of the results
and our speculations appear to be several:
(a) It is probably a mistake to treat all
undecided students as if they had the inde-
cisive disposition. Only a very small per-
centage could be expected to have such
characteristics to an incapacitating de-
gree. In terms of the evidence, it is more
reasonable to assume that most undecided
students do not have any special negative
characteristics and to treat them accord-
ingly, (b) Some undecided students do not
want or need assistance. They will cope
with their decisions when the realities de-
mand it. (c)Counselorscan identify indeci-
sive students with special needs by using
the brief scale used here or the scale devel-
oped by Osipowet al. (1976). Likewise, the
personal histories of undecided students
with special problems should be character-
ized by a general failure to make decisions
at culturally approved times. The Voca-
tional Attitude and Identity scales should
also be helpful in identifying the small
percentage of students with many of the
characteristics of the indecisive disposi-
tion.
Reference Notes
1. Holland, J. E. The Identity Scale. Unpublished
manuscript, Center for Social Organization of
Schools, Johns Hopkins University, 1976.
2. Holland, J. L. A descriptive study of two-year
college students. Unpublished manuscript, 1969.
(Available from the author, Department of Social
Relations, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
Maryland 21218.)
References
Ashby, J. D., Wall, H. W., & Osipow, S. H. Voca-
tional certainty and indecision in college fresh-
men. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1966, 44,
1037-1041.
Baird, L. L. The Indecision Scale: A reinterpreta-
tion. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1968,15,
174-179.
Baird, L. L. The undecided student-how different
is he? Personnel and GuidanceJournal, 1969, 47,
429-434.
Crites, J. O. Vocational psychology. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1969.
Crites, J. O. Theory and research handbook for the
Career Maturity Inventory. Monterey,Calif.:CTB/
McGraw-Hill, 1973.
Elton, C. P., & Rose, H. A. longitudinal study of the
vocationally undecided male student. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 1971,1, 85-92.
Galinsky, M. D., & Fast, I. Vocational choice as a
focus ofthe identity search. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 1966,13, 89-92.
Goodstein, L. D. Behaviortheoretical views ofcoun-
seling. In B. Stefflre (Ed.), Theoriesof counseling.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.

Greenberger, E., Josselson, R., Knerr, C., & Knerr,
B. The measurement and structure of psychoso-
cial maturity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
1975, 4, 127-143.
Hilgard, E. R., & Bower, G. H. Theoriesof learning.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975.
Holland, J. L. Professional manual for the Self-Di-
rected Search. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psy-
chologists Press, 1972.
Holland, J. L.Making vocational choices:A theory of
careers. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
1973.
Holland, J. L., & Baird, L. L. An interpersonal
competency scale. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 1968, 28, 503-510. (a)
Holland, J. L., & Baird, L. L. The Preconscious
Activity Scale: The development and validation of
an originality measure. Journal of Creative Be-
havior, 1968,2, 217-225. (b)
Holland, J. L., Gottfredson, G. D., & Nafziger, D.
H. A diagnostic scheme for specifying vocational
assistance (Research Rep. No. 164). Baltimore,
Md.: Johns Hopkins University, Center for the
Social Organization of Schools, 1973. (ERICDocu-
ment Reproduction Service No. ED 087 833.)
Holland, J. L., Gottfredson, G. D., & Nafziger, D.
H. Testing the validity ofsome theoretical signs of
vocational decision-making ability. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 1975, 22, 411-422.
Holland, J. L., & Nichols, R. C. The development
and validation of an indecision scale: The natural
history of a problem in basic research. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 1964,77, 27-34.
Kelso, G. I. The influences of stage ofleaving school
on vocational maturity and realism of vocational
choice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1975, 7,
29-39.
Kelso, G. I. Explorations of the developmentalante-
cedents of Holland's occupational types. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity, 1976.
Kimes, H. G., & Troth, W. A. Relationship of trait
anxiety to career decisiveness. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology, 1974,27, 277-280.
Lunneborg, P. W. Interest differentiation in high
school and vocational indecision in college. Jour-
nal of Vocational Behavior, 1975, 7, 297-303.
McClosky, H., &Schaar, J. H. Psychological dimen-
sions of anomy. American Sociological Review,
1965, 30, 14-40.
McGowan, A. S. Vocational maturity and anxiety
among vocationally undecided and indecisive stu-
dents: The effectiveness of the Self-Directed
Search (Doctoral dissertation, Fordham Univer-
sity, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International,
1974, 35, 2691A-2692A. (University Microfilms
No. 74-25, 105).
Mendonca, J. D., & Siess, T. F. Counseling for
indecisiveness: Problem-solving and anxiety-
management training. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 1976,23, 339-347.
Nelson, E., & Nelson, N. Student attitudes and
vocational choices. Journal of Abnormal and So-
cial Psychology, 1940,35, 279-282.
Osipow, S. H. Theories of career development (2nd
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973.
Osipow, S. H., Carney, C. G., & Barak, A. A scale of
educational-vocational undecidedness: Atypologi-
cal approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
1976, 9, 233-243.
Rose, H. A., & Elton, C. F. Attrition and the voca-
tionally undecided student. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 1971, 7, 99-103.
Tyler, L. The work of the counselor (2nd ed.). New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1961.
Received December 6, 1976 •

VOCATIONAL INDECISION (JOHN HOLLAND)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to VOCATIONAL INDECISION (JOHN HOLLAND)

Similar to VOCATIONAL INDECISION (JOHN HOLLAND) (20)

More from Nur Arifaizal Basri

More from Nur Arifaizal Basri (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

VOCATIONAL INDECISION (JOHN HOLLAND)