Investigating Relationship between Personality Traits and ...

Running head: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONALITY AND CAREER INDECISION 1

Investigating Relationship between Personality Traits and Career Indecision among College

Students

A thesis submitted to the

Graduate School

of the University of Cincinnati

In partial fulfillment of the

the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

In the Counseling program,

College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services

By

Yuhyun Park

B.S., Psychology

Indiana University, 2017

Committee Chair: Mei Tang, Ph.D.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONALITY AND CAREER INDECISION 2

Abstract

Although career decidedness is not necessarily regarded as a career counseling goal,

career indecision is a common concern of clients who seek career counseling. Many components

of career indecision have been studied, and the current study aims to further understand the

relationship between personality and career indecision. Specifically, the MBTI was used as a

measure of personality, and career indecision was determined by whether college students

declared a major or not. It was hypothesized that there were statistically significant differences

between each dimension (E-I, T-F, S-N and J-P) between exploratory students and declared

students. Specifically, it was predicted that individuals who prefer N and P were more likely to

experience career indecision. The current study tested the hypotheses using proportional t-tests

tests. The results indicate that individuals who had F and P preferences are more likely to

experience career indecision. The results offer an explanation about the impact of personality

traits on career indecision and how counselors can better help students who present such issues.

Keywords: career indecision, personality, MBTI, career decision making, career counseling,

exploratory students


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would first express my deep appreciation and sincere gratitude to my thesis advisor, Dr.

Mei Tang, for her patience, flexibility, understanding, and constructive feedback throughout the

past two years. Through the struggles and trials of this thesis, she has been a constant source of

support and encouragement. I would also like to gratefully acknowledge Dr. George Richardson

and Dr. Hang Joon Kim for their willingness to be a part of this project. They provided support

for completion of this project as well as valuable guidance and direction, especially with regard

to conceptualizing and interpreting the data. Lastly, I would like to thank my family for their

love, caring and sacrifices for educating and preparing me for my future.


Investigating Relationship between Personality Traits and Career Indecision

among College Student

College students enrolled in colleges without declared majors or career plan/choice have

been a focus of concern and research in career counseling and vocational psychology for many

years (Lewallen, 1995; Guay, Senécal, Gauthier & Fernet, 2003; Fabio, Palazzeschi, Asulin-

Peretz & Gati, 2013). Researchers in the 1990s estimated that between 20% and 50% of entering

freshmen have not selected a major course of study in the United States (Lewallen, 1995;

Gordon, 1994; Gordon, 1995), categorizing them as exploratory or undecided students. An

estimated 50-60% of students changed their initial academic or career choice and switched two

to three times before making a commitment to any given program (Dennis, 2007; Gordon, 1994).

More recent data indicate that within three years of initial enrollment, about 30 percent of

undergraduates in associate’s and bachelor’s degree programs who had declared a major had

changed their major at least once, and about one in 10 students changed majors more than once

(National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). It is evident that undecided students comprised

a substantial population on any campus for the past few decades and that career indecision is a

prevalent and long-standing issue.

Although career indecision has been a focus of research over the last few decades,

inquiry on career decision-making continues to grow as the context of the current world of work

is changing rapidly (Lipshits-Braziler, Braunstein-Bercovitz, & Kapach-Royf, 2019). Due to

increased career uncertainty, decreased job security, as well as career transitions which have

become more frequent; it has become even more critical to understand challenges of making a

career decision in order to provide better facilitate positive career trajectories.


Career Indecision and College Students

Career indecision is a common presenting problem experience for adolescents and young

adults (Kelly & Lee, 2002; Lipshits-Braziler, Gati, & Tatar, 2016; Xu & Bhang, 2019). Generally

defined as a state of being undecided about one’s educational, occupational, or career‐related

path, career indecision in the literature has been interpreted diversely. Historically, some

researchers viewed it as an inability to make an occupational or educational decision that is a

barrier in career decision‐making (Osipow, 1999; Slaney, 1988). Although in contemporary

career counseling career decidedness is not necessarily regarded as a counseling goal, career

indecision is a common concern of clients who seek career counseling. Thus, contemporary

literature focuses more on how counselors can best help clients with career indecision and some

researchers have seen career indecision as a normal developmental stage for entering college

students (Xu & Bhang, 2019). Some researchers viewed favorably the positive role of indecision,

characterizing it as an openness to alternative career pathways (Krumboltz, 2009) as well as a

state of adaptive uncertainty (Krieshok, Black, & McKay, 2009). Others viewed career

indecision could be focal problems such as lack of information or a combination of problems,

such as choice anxiety and trait indecision (Martincin & Stead, 2015). Kelly and Lee’s (2002)

definition of career indecision as the inability to specify an educational or occupational choice

was adopted as the operational definition of career indecision in this study.

The college years comprise a critical developmental transition when students entering

postsecondary education are involved in extensive exploration of new options and in decisions

about their future career without the pressures of having to commit to firm decisions (Lipshits-

Braziler, Braunstein-Bercovitz, & Kapach-Royf, 2019). Consequently, at the end of college years

individuals prepare to leave behind the freedom of the college experience and establish their

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cdq.12159#cdq12159-bib-0042





careers. The transition can be an empowering opportunity for greater responsibility,

achievement, and fulfillment; at the same time it can cause anxiety, a sense of stagnation, and

uncertainty especially for those who are still experiencing career indecision.

Understanding why attending college is important also because it influences academic

engagement and outcomes (Phinney, Dennis, & Osorio, 2006). Students attend college for

various reasons: new experiences, intellectual improvement, finding romantic partners, pleasing

parents and having fun, or simply because everyone else is going (Phinney et al., 2006; Dennis,

2007; Schab, 1974). Students today place a greater emphasis on the career preparation aspect of

college than they did in the past (Green & Hill, 2003). Hartman, Fuqua, and Hartman (1983)

reported that if undecided students did not receive help, they were more likely to drop out of

school and were unhappy with their eventual choice of career. Furthermore, undecided students

may make poor career and academic choices which could have an impact on their future career

and employment success (Lam & Santos, 2018; Fouad, Cotter, & Kantamneni, 2009; Gati,

Krauz, & Osipow, 1996). Those with the inability to choose a major experience difficulty in

making career related decisions (Frederiksen, 2009) which are attributable to high anxiety and

low problem-solving abilities. In a study where the career concern differences between

undecided and decided college students were examined, undecided college students reported

lower career decision-making self-efficacy, higher incidences of negative career thoughts, and

more career decision-making difficulties than their decided peers (Bullock-Yowell, Mcconnell &

Schedin, 2014). It is evident that there could be multiple components for career indecision and

that undecided students experienced more difficulties in colleges. Going to college as an

undeclared major often leads students to have to spend extra semesters in college to take the

required classes for the major that they eventually choose, which causes more debt as a result for


some. While it is common for students to arrive on college campuses without knowing who or

what they will be, they are still expected to make highly consequential decisions, such as which

school to attend and courses to select, despite their indecision. Career indecision is experienced

by such population not only in the United States, but also globally (Atitsogbe, Moumoula,

Rochat, Antonietti & Rossier, 2018; Jemini-Gashi, 2012; Jemini-Gashi, L., Duraku, Z. H., &

Kelmendi, K, 2019; Lam & Santos, 2018). These statistics and facts reflect the prevalence of

career indecision among college students and the need for continued research in this area to

facilitate career counseling interventions.

Contributing Factors to Career Indecision

A student’s process of choosing a major or career begins long before a student enters

college. Career theorists and researchers have explored various influences on the decision

process to better understand how to identify those struggling to make a career decision. Different

theoretical approaches in the areas of development, family systems, personality, and self-efficacy

have been studied during the past decade in relation to career indecision (Arce, 1996; Huang,

2001; Guay, Senécal, Gauthier, & Fernet, 2003; Martincin & Stead, 2015). For instance, Kelly

and Lee (2002) suggest that career indecision is caused by lack of information, need for

information, trait indecision, disagreement with others, identity diffusion, and choice anxiety and

can be influenced by family, friends, and mentors.

There have been numerous studies relating family relationship (e.g., parental separation,

psychological attachment; Blustein, Walbridge, Friedlander, & Palladino, 1991) and family

structure (e.g., flexible/authoritarian structure; Eigen, Hartman, & Hartman, 1987) to career

indecision. Research indicates concurrent perceptions of the family environment influence career

choice. For instance, some research has provided support for the relation between family


environment and career indecision and shows that positive family and peer interactions have

been negatively related to career indecision (Guay et al., 2003). Lent, Brown, and Hackett (1994)

proposed the social cognitive theory to better understand environment including one’s family

background and personality variables to career development. The social cognitive theoretical

framework asserts that family context and person inputs are important antecedents to self-

efficacy, which directly affects career interest, choice, and attainment. Family environment and

personality characteristics may form the quality of one’s learning environment, which in turn

influences the development of self-efficacy. Beliefs in one’s efficacy to regulate learning

activities and to master difficult subject matters may affect the career decision-making process

(e.g., academic major or occupational selection) (Bandura, 1986). Stronger efficacy beliefs are

associated with clearer career choice goals and actions (Betz & Hackett, 1986; Lent & Hackett,

1994). In contrast, students with lower levels of self-efficacy are more likely to have higher

levels of career indecision (Taylor & Betz, 1983) and to have more problems in career

exploration (Betz & Voyten, 1997).

Career decision difficulties have also been found to be associated with personality and

emotional intelligence (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2009). For example, personality traits such as

perfectionism, self-consciousness, fear of commitment (Leong & Chervinko, 1996), and anxiety

(Fuqua, Newman, & Seaworth, 1988) were positively associated with career indecision. In

contrast, rational decision making style (Mau, 1995), self-efficacy beliefs (Betz & Luzzo, 1996),

and level of ego identity (Cohen, Chartrand, & Jowdy, 1995) were negatively related to career

indecision (Guay et al., 2003). Although the relationship between personality and career

indecision has been studied immensely, inquiry on the relationship between the two variables


continues to grow as numerous personality trait models and measures develop, and

understanding of personality changes (Martincin & Stead, 2015; Rossier, 2015).

Relationship between Personality and Career Indecision

Personality has been a key component to understanding careers and how they impact an

individual’s life (Martincin & Stead, 2015). Holland’s RIASEC model (Holland, 1958), as well

as work by Parsons addressed “personal characteristics” in 1909, denoted meaningful relations

between personality and career decision making. Personality plays a key role in how one shapes

a career (Costa, McCrae, & Holland, 1984) and whether one may experience difficulties in career

decision making (Di Fabio, Palazzeschi, Levin & Gati, 2015; Li, Hou & Feng, 2013; Gati,

Asulin-Peretz & Fisher, 2012; Zhang, Ding, Hu & Si, 2016).

Personality traits can be protective factors or risk factors for career decision-making

difficulties (Marcionetti & Rossier, 2017). Several studies have found correlations between

personality traits and career indecision, and most studies have considered the five-factor model

(neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness).

Martincin and Stead (2015) found evidence that personality traits can predict difficulties in

career decision making. Moreover, following the suggestion by Rossier (2015), it would be

important to further study the mediators of the relationship between personality traits and career

indecision, as well as the moderators. It is important to notice that Martincin and Stead

(2015) have already determined that both age and nationality were significant moderators of the

relationship between personality traits and career indecision.

Research showed a statistically significant positive relationship between Neuroticism and

DCDM, and statistically significant negative relationships between Agreeableness,

Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Openness (Martincin & Stead, 2015). Results across

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1069072716652890




studies were however quite different. For example, extraversion and neuroticism were found to

be the dimensions most strongly related to career decision-making difficulties in the study

by Kelly and Shin (2009), whereas other researchers observed that conscientiousness was

positively and significantly correlated with career decidedness and that extraversion did not

correlate with career decidedness. The overall direct impact of personality on career indecision is

well documented, but the respective impact of each personality dimension on career indecision

varies between the studies. Thus, more research is needed to better describe the relationship

between personality traits and career indecision.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Types and Career Decision Making

Myers and Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is widely used by organizations and career

counselors in assisting clients seeking to understand their personality type in relation to

possible careers. The MBTI is a personality instrument designed to classify people into groups

of personality types on a range between dichotomous scales and has a long history as a

psychological assessment in the human services field (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer,

1998; Kennedy & Kennedy, 2004). The MBTI is used in all kinds of settings, including

counseling, education and workplaces where supervisors or co-workers utilize this for team

building. In organizations, the MBTI is used for leadership development, teamwork, managing

for change, understanding work requirements and work styles, and career planning (McCaulley

& Martin, 1995). More than two million assessments are administered annually (Myers-Briggs

Company, 2019). It is used in 26 countries to assess employees, students, soldiers and potential

marriage partners. It is used by Fortune 500 companies and universities, in self-improvement

seminars and wellness retreats. Many supporting books, websites and other sources are readily

available to the general public (Lok, 2012).




The MBTI consists of four categories: Introversion/Extraversion, Sensing/Intuition,

Thinking/Feeling and Judging/Perception. Test takers have one preferred quality from each

category, producing 16 unique types. MBTI career research has been concerned with questions

about type differences in choice of careers, choice of specialties, career satisfaction, and career

success (the Myers‐Briggs Company, 2018; Nowack, 1996; Myers et al., 1998). The result of

MBTI generates a profile that both clients and career counselors can use to facilitate

understanding of oneself. It provides insights regarding past behavior and is predictive of

environments and activities that may provide career satisfaction. It offers awareness of personal

preferences regarding how clients get energized, take in information, make decisions, and

respond to daily experiences. It also offers the opportunity for career counselors to move out of

their roles of advice-givers and experts to that of joint discovery along with the client.

Personality preferences have direct implications in career development (Di Fabio,

Palazzeschi, Levin & Gati, 2015; Li, Hou & Feng, 2013; Gati, Asulin-Peretz & Fisher, 2012;

Zhang, Ding, Hu & Si, 2016). According to Schenck (2010), extraverts tend to have larger

network of friends, associates and acquaintances. They utilize their verbal abilities to identify

their strengths, aspirations and desires. Taken to extreme, they may be too verbal and not listen

well. Introverts approach the job search process very thoughtfully and methodically, especially

with application preparation and written documentation. They may spend more time thinking

about the job than acting and may appear unassertive. Sensing people are realistic, thorough, and

systematic in their job search but may be reluctant to try something new (Hirsch, 1991). Intuitive

people recognize potentials and possibilities, locating resources, and representing themselves

well in interviews. They may have problems responding to factual questions and tend to

procrastinate. Thinking people make decisions grounded in objective analysis but may not be


aware of impact of their decision on others. Feeling people will place a high priority on their

values, can read overall organizational climate readily, and project personable caring nature.

They may not appear to be analytical or able to make difficult decision and tend to take job

rejection on a personal level. Judging people will use organized step-by-step approach to job

search and may limit options in order to make quick decisions. Perceiving people are

spontaneous and flexible but may have difficulty making decisions.

While the instrument may be useful in helping individuals find work that is meaningful to

them, the MBTI not intended to delineate concrete career areas for clients (La Guardia, 2013).

The inclusion of at least one additional assessment tool with regard to career counseling has been

recommended by critiques (Ayoubi & Ustwani, 2014; Passmore, Holloway & Rawle-Cope,

2010; Schenck, 2010). The instrument is intended to provide information regarding areas that

might be most congruent with client characteristic preferences. Thus, research suggests the

MBTI should be used as a processing tool to help create insight about preferences, and it should

not be used as a tool to predict what type of job or environment would be best suited for the

client. The types (four letter combination of four dimensions) provides information about

individuals’ preferences of interacting with the outside world.

Rationale

As stated above, increasing number of college students entered colleges without a

declared major, consequently, higher education institutions have allocated energy and resources

on counseling and advising the undecided students (e.g., the enormous increase in number and

spread of programs and services that target the retention of undecided students; Lewallen, 1995).

Although most institutions provide some sort of program or service to assist this group, students

who enter college undecided and are still exploring majors need a support to be retained (Dennis,


2007; Hitchcock, 2012; Workman, 2013; Workman, 2015). Understanding the sources of career

indecision is important because it allows career counselors to better match their counseling

strategies to the major sources of their clients’ decision-making problems and foster more

effective coping with these difficulties.

The majority of first year students at four-year institutions are 18-24 year-olds, and

transitioning to college is a critical developmental transition as it signifies an important phase for

students’ intellectual, moral, and identity development. Making decisions can be stressful for

several reasons. Individuals are worried not only about having to make a decision but about

making the right decision and about the negative outcomes that may occur if the wrong decision

is made (Lipshits-Braziler, Gati, & Tatar 2016). Despite the prevalence and seriousness of

clients’ presenting issue of career indecision, there have not been many studies that focused on

the importance of coping effectively with the challenges involved in this process. According to

Kelly and Lee (2002), the career indecision treatment literature might be “unsophisticated and

undeveloped.”

The world of work radically changes, and career counselors are confronted with the

challenge of how to best advise and prepare their clients. Inquiry on career decision-making has

proceeded in many directions as a result. Although the relationship between career indecision

and other factors has been studied immensely, not many studies were able to empirically assess

personality as a stable component of career indecision. Consequently, we know that there is a

gap in the current literature about personality and career indecision. Inquiry on the relationship

between the two variables continues to grow as numerous personality trait models and measures

develop, and also our understanding of personality changes.


Although the impact of personality on career indecision has previously been studied by

using some personality models, the respective impact of each personality dimension on career

indecision varies between the studies (Martincin & Stead, 2015; Kelly & Shin, 2009). Thus,

more research is needed to better describe the relationship between personality traits and career

indecision. Specifically, despite the popularity, practicability, and applicability of the MBTI in

real life settings, the MBTI has not been studied immensely with regard to career indecision.

Although the instrument is widely used in career counseling, little empirical evidence has been

found in its relation to career indecision. Consequently, the current study utilizes the MBTI as a

personality assessment tool to explore the relationship between personality and career indecision.

Purpose

The purpose of the study is to explore the relationships between personality types

measured by MBTI types and career indecision. The researcher wants to explore gender

differences and personality differences between exploratory students and declared students.

Exploratory students are defined as students who are undecided about a major when they enroll

in college whereas declared students indicate students who have officially identified their major

or course of study.

Research Questions

The research questions this study aims to respond to are:

1. What are the differences in personality types between declared students and

exploratory students?

The hypothesis is declared students are more likely to prefer sensing because they are

more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible, and concrete whereas students

who prefer intuition tend to trust information that is less dependent upon the senses, that can be


associated with other information either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or

pattern. They may be more interested in future possibilities, and information overload or choice

overload can lead people to have a difficult time making a decision (Zakaria, 2012). From the

perspective of MBTI type, indecision may be a function of orientation to life (E-I) and/or

preferred mode of perceiving (S-N) and judging (T-F). For example, ENs may have difficulty in

making a career choice, especially early in life, whereas ESs may be more action oriented and

more decisive in their career choices (Myers & McCaulley, 1992).

2. What are the differences in personality types between male and female students?

According to the collected data by the Myers-Briggs Company (2019), the only

significant difference between genders occurs within the Thinking - Feeling dichotomy. The

majority of women (approximately 75%) fall into the feelers category, whereas less than 45% of

men can be categorized as feelers. This indicates that nearly 55% of men are considered thinkers

compared to 25% of women. Thus, the hypothesis to this question is that female students are

more likely to prefer feeling than male students. Gender is presumed to influence career choice

because research shows personality differences play a vital role in career indecision, and there

are personality differences in gender. Schenck’s study (2010) shows that although percentage of

occurrence varied per gender, the highest trait occurrences for both genders was Extravert,

Intuitive, and Feeling. Also, males had a higher percentage of Perceiving and females for

Judging.

Methodology

Sample

The study utilized archival data gathered from an undergraduate class in career

development at one urban Midwestern university. Students who took career development classes


completed MBTI as part of their class components. The instructor used MBTI as an exercise to

help students increase their self-understanding of their personality and how to use the results for

career choices. The total number of students in these classes are 177 with 116 (66%) exploratory

students and 61 (34%) declared students. Of the exploratory students, 62 (53%) students were

female and 52 (45%) were male students, and 2 (2%) students did not identify themselves neither

female nor male. Of the 61 declared students, 29 (48%) students identified as female, and 30

(49%) students were male, and 2 (3%) students did not identify themselves neither female nor

male. The following tables show raw data (see Table 1 for complete distribution of personality

types information, Table 2 for distribution of majors among declared students and Table 3 for

distribution of gender).

Table 1.

Distribution of Personality Types by Occurrence

Personality Type

(N=177)

No. of Exploratory Students % No. of Declared Students %

ENFJ

ENFP

ENTJ

ENTP

ESFJ

ESFP

ESTJ

ESTP

INFJ

INFP

INTJ

INTP

ISFJ

ISFP

ISTJ

ISTP

Total

6

21

4

4

9

7

3

1

14

24

5

6

4

5

1

2

116

5

18

3

3

8

6

3

1

12

21

4

5

3

4

1

2

8

3

1

3

4

1

2

2

9

6

4

9

6

0

2

1

61

13

5

2

5

7

2

3

3

15

10

7

15

10

0

3

2


Table 2.

Distribution of Majors by Occurrence

Major No. of Students

Biochemistry

Archaeology

2

1

Biological Sciences 15

Chemistry 4

Classics 1

Environmental Studies 8

Exploratory

Geology

History (1 of them also majoring in Spanish)

Interdisciplinary

International Affairs, Political Science

Journalism

Liberal Art

Mathematics

Neuroscience

Pre-Pharmacy

Psychology

Spanish

1

1

4

8

1

3

1

3

1

1

4

2

Table 3.

Distribution of Gender by Occurrence

Status\Gender Male % Female % Unknown % Total

Exploratory

Declared

52

30

45

49

62

29

53

48

2

2

2

3

116

61

Total 82 91 4 177

Measurement

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. The MBTI is a self-report questionnaire designed to make

Jung’s theory of psychological types understandable and useful in everyday life. While the

instrument is widely used for understanding normal personality differences, the use of the MBTI

in career counseling is very popular and worth exploring. Controversies over its validity and


reliability have existed for a long time (Nowack, 1996; Kennedy & Kennedy, 2004; Schenck,

2010; La Guardia, 2013). The present study utilizes the instrument, considering that more

research is needed to better the adequate use of the MBTI as a useful in helping students deal

with career indecision.

Validity of MBTI. Form M showed improvement in reliability over previously constructed

forms (La Guardia, 2013). Internal consistency ranged from 0.89-0.94 for all age groups, and

from national sample, internal consistency ranged from 0.88-0.92 for females and 0.90-0.93 for

males. Test-retest reliabilities for Form M were generally higher than previously constructed

forms. A confirmatory factor analysis using the national sample revealed the adjusted goodness

of fit to be 0.949, and correlations exist between the MBTI preference scale scores: E-I (.89

to .95); S-N (.86 to .95); T-F (.86 to .93); and J-P (.88 to .94) (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, &

Hammer, 2003). A variety of other similar assessment tools support the convergent validity of the

four preference scale areas. For instance, in a study of two different college groups (N = 245),

MBTI (CPP, 2003) was compared to the Strong Interest Inventory (SII) (CPP, 2005) and General

Occupational Themes (GOT). Significant correlations (p < .01) between these two were similar

in both samples include Intuition with Artistic (.52 and .42), Extraversion (.26 and .21) and

Feeling (.34 and .24) with Social; and Sensing (.33 and .37) and Judging (.20 and .21) with

Conventional (Myers et al, 2003). In another study (N= 245) comparing MBTI (CPP, 2003) with

the Skills Confidence Inventory (Betz, Borgen, & Harmon, 1996) showed similar results.

Significant correlations (p < .01) occurred between Intuition with Artistic (.47); Extraversion

(.34) and Feeling (.20) with Social; and Sensing with Conventional (.20) (Myers et al., 2003).

Little evidence for the validity of whole types or particular combinations of preferences is


known. However, instead of using the combinations, the current study uses each trait which has

more empirical data.

Data Analysis

This study compared students who entered university with an intended major with those

who entered undecided. The purpose of this study is to expand the body of knowledge of career

counseling by examining the relationship between personality preferences and career indecision

using the most frequently used vocational instrument, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). In

addition, gender was examined to determine if there are gender differences for the relationship to

their personality preferences.

Personality traits. Participants’ MBTI types were available for each subject for one of

each of the four personality traits dichotomous pairs (Extravert or Introvert, Sensing or Intuitive,

Thinking or Feeling, and Judging or Perceiving) (Myers et al, 2003). Each participant has a type

preference within each dichotomous pair. Thus, their preference is categorized into either E or I

in the first dimension as an example. Thus, each participant has a combination of 4 preferred

types, such as ESTJ, INFP and so on. This information was entered into data system for each

subject as preferred personality traits. In addition, to determine whether declared and exploratory

students have differences in their preferences on each dimension, a set of four dichotomous

variables were created for each dimension. Each dimension was then coded as 0 and 1. For

instance, Extroversion vs Introversion is coded as 1 and 0, Intuition vs Sensing is coded as 1 and

0; Thinking vs Feeling is coded as 1 and 0; and Judging vs Perceiving is coded as 1 and 0.

Gender. A dichotomous variable for gender were created in a similar fashion (Female = 1,

Male = 2). Nominal values were entered for each subject and added to the database for gender.


T-test with Two Independent Samples, Dichotomous Outcome. Each subject had responses

for four preferred personality traits (one of the dichotomous pairs from each of the four

personality domains). Given the sample size that is relatively small (N= 177), it was expected

some personality types might have low responses. The outcome is each dimension that is

dichotomous (E-I, S-N, T-F, and J-P), and whether the student is declared or exploratory is

considered as a two independent comparison group. The goal of the analysis is to compare

proportions of declared students in each dimension. The relevant sample data are the sample

sizes in each comparison group (n1 and n2) and the sample proportions (p̂1 and p̂2) which are

computed by taking the ratios of the numbers of declared students to the sample sizes in each

group, i.e.,

p̂1 =𝑥1

n1 and p̂2 =

𝑥2

n2

Results

Following the data analysis strategies explained above, a series of calculations were

performed. For the dimension of Judging and Perceiving, see Table 4 below for details.

Table 4.

Distribution of Students by J-P Dimension

Status\Traits Judging % Perceiving % Total

Exploratory

Declared

46

36

39.66

59.02

70

25

60.34

40.98

116

61

177

There is a total of 116 exploratory students, and 70 students (out of 116) prefer perceiving. The

denominator is the total number of exploratory students, and the numerator is the number of


students who prefer perceiving. Thus, the prevalence of perceiving students among declared

students is computed as follows:

p̂1 =25

61= 0.4098

The prevalence of perceiving students among exploratory students is computed in the same way.

p̂2 =70

116= 0.6034

The status in the major (whether they have decided a major or not) defines the comparison

groups, and given that the declared students group is labelled as group 1 and the exploratory

students group as group 2, the test of hypothesis is conducted as the following.

H0: p1 = p2 H1: p1 ≠ p2 α=0.05

Given that confidence interval is 95% (α=0.05), H0 is rejected if Z < -1.96 or if Z > 1.96. Z value

is calculated by using the following formula.

z =p̂1 − p̂2

√p̂(1 − p̂)(1n1

+1

n2)

The overall proportion of students who prefer perceiving is computed by using the following

formula.

p̂ =𝑥1+𝑥2

n1 + n2=

25 + 70

61 + 116= 0.5367

Given that p̂ is 0.5367, z value can now be computed as shown below.

𝑧 =0.4098 − 0.6034

√0.5367(1 − 0.5367)(1

61 +1

116)

= −2.4548

∴ H0 is rejected because -2.4548 < -1.960 meaning that there is statistically significant evidence

at α=0.05 to suggest that there is a difference in prevalent P trait between declared and


exploratory students. The same conclusion can be made from the 95% confidence interval of the

prevalence difference D̂ = p̂1 − p̂2 which is (-0.3458, -0.0414). This is consistent with the first

hypothesis that students who prefer perceiving are more likely to experience career indecision.

The same process was conducted for the other three dimensions: E-I, T-F and S-N as

shown in Table 5, 6 and 7 below.

Table 5.

Distribution of Students by E-I Dimension

Status\Trait Extrovert % Introvert % Total

Exploratory

Declared

55

24

47.41

39.34

61

37

52.59

60.66

116

61

177

p̂1 =37

61= 0.6066 and p̂2 =

61

116= 0.5259

H0: p1 = p2 H1: p1 ≠ p2 α=0.05

Given that confidence interval is 95% (α=0.05), H0 is rejected if Z < -1.96 or if Z > 1.96.

z =p̂1 − p̂2

√p̂(1 − p̂)(1n1

+1

n2)

=0.6066 − 0.5259

√0.5537(1 − 0.5537)(1

61 +1

116)

= 1.0264

The overall proportion is computed by:

p̂ =𝑥1+𝑥2

n1 + n2=

37 + 61

61 + 116= 0.5537

∴ The test fails to reject the null hypothesis. The value of z being 1.0264 indicates that we

cannot conclude that there is statistically significant evidence at α=0.05 to suggest that there is a

difference in prevalent introvert trait between declared and exploratory students. This result is

attributed to either 1) lack of data or 2) homogeneousness between the two groups.

Table 6.


Distribution of Students by T-F Dimension

Status\Trait Thinking % Feeling % Total

Exploratory

Declared

22

24

18.97

39.34

94

37

81.03

60.66

116

61

177

p̂1 =37

61= 0.6066 and p̂2 =

94

116= 0.8103

H0: p1 = p2 H1: p1 ≠ p2 α=0.05


z =p̂1 − p̂2

√p̂(1 − p̂)(1n1

+1

n2)

=0.6066 − 0.8103

√0.7401(1 − 0.7401) (1

61 +1

116)

= −2.9366

The overall proportion of students with the feeling trait:

p̂ =𝑥1+𝑥2

n1 + n2=

37 + 94

61 + 116= 0.7401


at α=0.05 to suggest that there is a difference in prevalent F trait between declared and

exploratory students. The same conclusion can be made from the 95% confidence interval of the

prevalence difference D̂ = p̂1 − p̂2 which is (-0.3609, -0.0465). This is consistent with the

second hypothesis that students who prefer feeling are more likely to experience career

indecision.

Table 7.

Distribution of Students by S-N Dimension

Status\Trait Sensing % Intuitive % Total

Exploratory

Declared

32

18

27.59

29.51

84

43

72.41

70.49

116

61

177


p̂1 =43

61= 0.7049 and p̂2 =

84

116= 0.7241

H0: p1 = p2 H1: p1 ≠ p2 α=0.05


z =p̂1 − p̂2

√p̂(1 − p̂)(1n1

+1

n2)

=0.7049 − 0.7241

√0.7175(1 − 0.7175) (1

61 +1

116)

= −0.2696

The overall proportion of students who prefer intuitive:

p̂ =𝑥1+𝑥2

n1 + n2=

43 + 84

61 + 116= 0.7175

∴ The test fails to reject the null hypothesis. The value of z being -0.2696 indicates that we


difference in prevalent intuitive trait between declared and exploratory students. This result is


Gender Analysis. The outcome is each dimension that is dichotomous (E-I, S-N, T-F, and

J-P), and whether the student is male or female is considered as a two independent comparison

group. The goal of the analysis is to compare proportions of female students in each dimension.

The relevant sample data are the sample sizes in each comparison group (n1 and n2) and the

sample proportions (p̂1 and p̂2) which are computed by taking the ratios of the numbers of female

students to the sample sizes in each group, i.e., p̂1 =𝑥1

n1 and p̂2 =

𝑥2

n2.

Table 8.

Distribution of Students by Gender and E-I Dimension

Gender\Trait Extrovert % Introvert % Total

Male

Female

34

44

41.46

48.35

48

47

58.54

51.65

82

91


Gender\Trait Extrovert % Introvert % Total

173

p̂1 =47

91= 0.5165 and p̂2 =

48

82= 0.5854

H0: p1 = p2 H1: p1 ≠ p2 α=0.05


z =p̂1 − p̂2

√p̂(1 − p̂)(1n1

+1

n2)

=0.5165 − 0.5854

√0.5491(1 − 0.5491)(1

82 +1

91)

= −0.9094

The overall proportion of students who prefer introvert:

p̂ =𝑥1+𝑥2

n1 + n2=

47 + 48

91 + 82= 0.5491





Table 9.

Distribution of Students by Gender and S-N Dimension

Gender\Trait Sensing % Intuitive % Total

Male

Female

23

25

28.05

27.47

59

66

71.95

72.53

82

91

173

p̂1 =66

91= 0.7253 and p̂2 =

59

82= 0.7195

H0: p1 = p2 H1: p1 ≠ p2 α=0.05



z =p̂1 − p̂2

√p̂(1 − p̂)(1n1

+1

n2)

=0.7253 − 0.7195

√0.7225(1 − 0.7225)(1

82 +1

91)

= 0.0850

The overall proportion:

p̂ =𝑥1+𝑥2

n1 + n2=

66 + 59

91 + 82= 0.7225

∴ The test fails to reject the null hypothesis. The value of z being 0.0850 indicates that we




Table 10.

Distribution of Students by Gender and T-F Dimension

Gender\Trait Thinking % Feeling % Total

Male

Female

33

11

40.24

12.09

49

80

59.76

87.91

82

91

173

p̂1 =80

91= 0.8791 and p̂2 =

49

82= 0.5976

H0: p1 = p2 H1: p1 ≠ p2 α=0.05


z =p̂1 − p̂2

√p̂(1 − p̂)(1n1

+1

n2)

=0.8791 − 0.5976

√0.7457(1 − 0.7457)(1

82 +1

91)

= 4.2455

The overall proportion of students who prefer feeling:

p̂ =𝑥1+𝑥2

n1 + n2=

80 + 49

91 + 82= 0.7457


∴ H0 is rejected because 4.2455 > 1.960 meaning that there is statistically significant evidence

at α=0.05 to suggest that there is a difference in prevalent F trait between male and female

students. The same conclusion can be made from the 95% confidence interval of the prevalence

difference D̂ = p̂1 − p̂2 which is (0.1585, 0.4045). This is consistent with the third hypothesis

that students who prefer feeling are more likely to be female.

Table 11.

Distribution of Students by Gender and J-P Dimension

Gender\Trait Judging % Perceiving % Total

Male

Female

35

22

42.68

24.18

47

69

57.32

75.82

82

91

173

p̂1 =69

91= 0.7582 and p̂2 =

47

82= 0.5732

H0: p1 = p2 H1: p1 ≠ p2 α=0.05


z =p̂1 − p̂2

√p̂(1 − p̂)(1n1

+1

n2)

=0.7582 − 0.5732

√0.6705(1 − 0.6705)(1

82 +1

91)

= 2.5849

The overall proportion of students who prefer perceiving:

p̂ =𝑥1+𝑥2

n1 + n2=

69 + 47

91 + 82= 0.6705

∴ H0 is rejected because 2.5849 > 1.960 meaning that there is statistically significant evidence

at α =0.05 to suggest that there is a difference in prevalent F trait between male and female

students. The same conclusion can be made from the 95% confidence interval of the prevalence

difference D̂ = p̂1 − p̂2 which is (0.0475, 0.3225). This suggests that students who prefer

perceiving are more likely to be female.


T-test with Male Students Only. The same t-test is conducted with male students only to

see whether gender is a significant factor that is contributing to the differences. The outcome is

each dimension that is dichotomous (E-I, S-N, T-F, and J-P), and whether the male student is

declared or exploratory is considered as a two independent comparison group. The goal of the

analysis is to compare proportions of declared male students in each dimension. The relevant

sample data are the sample sizes in each comparison group (n1 and n2) and the sample

proportions (p̂1 and p̂2) which are computed by taking the ratios of the numbers of declared

students to the sample sizes in each group, i.e.,

p̂1 =𝑥1

n1 and p̂2 =

𝑥2

n2

See Table 12 and 13 below for details.

Table 12.

Distribution of Male Students by J-P Dimension

Status\Traits Judging % Perceiving % Total

Exploratory

Declared

22

13

42.31

43.33

30

17

57.69

56.67

52

30

82

p̂1 =17

30= 0.5667 and p̂2 =

30

52= 0.5769

H0: p1 = p2 H1: p1 ≠ p2 α=0.05


z =p̂1 − p̂2

√p̂(1 − p̂)(1n1

+1

n2)

=0.5667 − 0.5769

√0.5732(1 − 0.5732)(1

30 +1

52)

= −0.0899

The overall proportion is computed by:

p̂ =𝑥1+𝑥2

n1 + n2=

17 + 30

30 + 52= 0.5732




difference in prevalent perceiving trait between declared and exploratory male students. This

result is attributed to either 1) lack of data or 2) homogeneousness between the two groups.

Table 13.

Distribution of Male Students by T-F Dimension

Status\Trait Thinking % Feeling % Total

Exploratory

Declared

16

17

30.77

56.67

36

13

69.23

43.33

52

30

82

p̂1 =13

30= 0.4333 and p̂2 =

36

52= 0.6923

H0: p1 = p2 H1: p1 ≠ p2 α=0.05


z =p̂1 − p̂2

√p̂(1 − p̂)(1n1

+1

n2)

=0.4333 − 0.6923

√0.5976(1 − 0.5976)(1

30 +1

52)

= −2.3037

The overall proportion of male students who prefer feeling:

p̂ =𝑥1+𝑥2

n1 + n2=

13 + 36

30 + 52= 0.5976


at α=0.05 to suggest that there is a difference in prevalent F trait between declared and

exploratory male students. The same conclusion can be made from the 95% confidence interval

of the prevalence difference D̂ = p̂1 − p̂2 which is (-0.4762, -0.0418). This suggests that male

students who prefer feeling are more likely to experience career indecision.

Summary of Results


The data used in this study were categorized into two independent comparison groups:

declared vs. exploratory and male vs. female, and the outcome was each dimension that is

dichotomous. The goal of the analysis was to compare proportions of personality traits between

the two groups. In tests of hypothesis comparing proportions between two independent groups,

one test is performed and results can be interpreted to apply to a risk difference. Consequently, a

risk difference was computed for dimensions that showed statistically significant differences to

support the findings. The data analysis plan was to perform a t-test to examine H0: RD = 0 versus

H1: RD ≠ 0 and the test rejected H0 at α=0.05. Based on the test we planned to conclude that

there is significant evidence, α=0.05, of a difference in proportions.

A t-test with two independent samples was conducted to compare 1) personality traits (E-

I, S-N, T-F, and J-P) among exploratory students and declared students, 2) personality traits

among male and female students and 3) personality traits among male students only. There was a

significant difference in the scores for 1) the J-P and T-F dimensions between exploratory and

declared students (z=-2.4548; z=2.9366), 2) the J-P and T-F dimensions between male and

female students (z=4.2455; z=2.5849) and 3) the T-F dimension among male students (z=-

2.3037). These results suggest that the T-F and J-P dimensions have an effect on career

indecision and gender, and specifically, female students are more likely to prefer F and P traits.

Also, male students who prefer feeling are more likely to experience career indecision. The same

conclusions can be drawn from the 95% confidence interval of the prevalence difference of each

t-test. Specifically, a 95% confidence interval for the differences in prevalent P and F that were

shown to be statistically significant was (-0.3458, -0.0414), (-0.3609, -0.0465), (0.1585, 0.4045),

(0.0475, 0.3225) and (-0.4762, -0.0418). Because the 95% confidence interval for the risk


difference does not include zero for all the five items, we conclude that there is a statistically

significant difference in prevalent P and F between declared students and exploratory students.

The results of the other five t-tests failed to reject the null hypothesis. The value of z being

greater than or equal to 1.960 or less than or equal to -1.960 indicated that we cannot conclude

that there is statistically significant evidence at α=0.05 to suggest that there is a difference in

prevalent introvert and intuitive traits between declared and exploratory students. The values of z

for the five t-tests were (z=1.0264) for the E-I dimension distributed by decidedness; (z=-0.2696)

for the S-N dimension distributed by decidedness; (z=-0.9094) for the E-I dimension distributed

by gender; (z=0.0850) for the S-N dimension distributed by gender; and (z=-0.0899) for the J-P

dimension among male students only. This result may mean that there was lack of data to draw

such a conclusion or that there is no difference between the two groups.

Discussion

The purpose of the study was to assess whether there is a significant difference in

proportions in two independent comparison groups: exploratory students vs. declared students

and male students vs. female students. Constructing confidence intervals gives us ranges of data

that will contain the population mean 95% of the time, assuming that the population of sample

means is normally distributed. According to the results, there is a difference in proportions of the

prevalence in P and F traits in both exploratory students and female students as compared to

declared students and male students. Specifically, a significantly higher number of students with

P or F trait is more likely to experience career indecision, and also a significantly higher number

of students with P or F trait were female. The same result was produced when a t-test of the T-F

dimension was conducted with male students only. This result indicates that both male and

female students with P or F can go through the same experience of career indecision. Although


there are statistically significant differences in prevalent personality traits of P and F between

male and female students, career indecision is attributed to personality traits and other potential

confounders rather than gender.

The dimension of T-F reflects individuals’ decision preferences. Thinkers desire

objective truth and logical principles and are natural at deductive reasoning whereas feelers place

an emphasis on issues and causes that can be personalized while they consider other people's

motives. According to the results of the current study, it can be interpreted that those who prefer

feeling are more likely to experience career indecision because they may experience difficulty

setting priorities and making decisions in general. When feelers come to decisions by

empathizing with the situation, weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest

harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved, this may lead them to

indecision. The J-P dimension reflects how a person regards complexity. Individuals with the J

trait tend to have a structured way or theory to approach the world whereas those who prefer P

tend to be unstructured and keep options open. Thus, perceiving individuals may experience lack

of discipline when attending to and following through on important details and tendency to

become bored or side-tracked, especially after the creative process is accomplished (Myers et al.,

1998). They also tend to be reluctant to do things in traditional or routine ways because they

dislike repetitive tasks, and so they experience impatience working with systems or people who

are too rigid and difficulty working in competitive or tension-filled environments. Some who

prefer perceiving tend to be disorganized and focus on what is possible versus doable and have

trouble working on projects that conflict with values.

Implications for Practice and Research.


The results of this study gave a brief glimpse into the relationship between personality

traits and career indecision within a group of undergraduate students at the University of

Cincinnati. Some findings emerged from this study, and future study is recommended to explore

these with other populations. Rather than developing definitive answers, this exploratory study

has opened doors for further investigation.

Based on the results of this study, the use of personality assessment tools including the

MBTI along with other assessments can be recommended in career counseling practice because

it gives clients separate data from which they can begin to construct their personal and career

self-awareness. With the understanding and appreciation of these personality traits and how they

can play an important part in the career exploration and decision-making process, counselors can

assist people to make satisfying and efficient career decisions. As discussed in the introduction,

simply changing the mindset from the more negative undecided or undeclared

to open or exploring may help relieve some of the anxiety clients experience and may help them

embrace, at least for a time, this exploring status. It is helpful for clients to see this as an

opportunity, rather than a problem as they gather information during the first year of college.

With the findings of this study in mind, counselors can ameliorate their counseling process with

clients’ indecision issues by understanding their personality traits.

There are several limitations in the study. First, although these results are applicable to a

college population, the sample was limited to full-time university students, which can be limiting

in its generalizability to the entire population. The sample size was very small (N=177), and it

only contained students at the University of Cincinnati. Thus, the education level of the

participants is clearly skewed and only representative of those that are receiving higher

education. These results provide a limited extent of the study’s applicability to the general


population and suggest that future results taken from a sample with varying education levels

might demonstrate a more accurate representation of the investigation of career indecision.

Second, we used the MBTI in order to measure personality, which only contained

nominally based scores. However, because the validity of the MBTI types has been criticized, the

types are commonly used in career counseling, analysis of the types can provide information

about whether they, despite being less than ideal, provide clinically useful information. Because

the current study was a secondary analysis of existing data, continuous variables were not

available. Future research of MBTI should collect data that contain continuous scores of each

dimension (E-I, S-N, T-F and J-P) and explore personality traits in relation to other variables by

examining the differences in the numeric values, which will produce more details and depths.

The use of MBTI as a variable in a study should also consider other career assessment measures

of interests, values, skills, and development. MBTI preferences alone should never be used to

exclude or determine a career choice. Also, while the MBTI has been translated into a variety of

other languages, its cultural versatility has not been extensively researched. Little information

exists as to whether it is useful with regard to considerations of multiculturalism and diversity of

experience (La Guardia, 2013).

One other limitation with studies of personality is that as with other psychological

assessment, persons wishing to protect themselves can bend answers at least somewhat toward

their ideal picture of themselves or their expectations. Particular care should be used when the

MBTI is used in research because MBTI questions are straightforward. For researchers and

practitioners who utilize MBTI, a thorough knowledge of the measure is required before

interpreting results with clients or participants. Clients seeking specific job titles may be

uncomfortable with the non-direct interpretive approach of MBTI as a career assessment tool.


Clients may feel MBTI gives more psychological information than they were prepared to discuss

with a career counselor. Clients may not pursue career options that appear opposite their type

despite their possible advantage of offering different skills than co-workers of a new work group.

Conclusion

The results of the current study contribute to further understanding career indecision and

personality traits. Due to the prevalence of career indecision among college students, the demand

for continued research in this area to facilitate career counseling interventions is evident. Future

research should continue to expand on different contributing factors to career indecision as a

means to reduce the associated consequences and barriers to treatment needed by this population

and other relevant populations.


References

Arce, E. M. (1996). The effects of social support and self-esteem on career indecision: A cross-

cultural comparison between two groups of undergraduate students. Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New York, NY.

Atitsogbe, K. A., Moumoula, I. A., Rochat, S., Antonietti, J.-P., & Rossier, J. (2018). Vocational

interests and career indecision in Switzerland and Burkina Faso: Cross-cultural

similarities and differences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 107, 126–140. doi:

10.1016/j.jvb.2018.04.002

Ayoubi, R. M., & Ustwani, B. (2014). The relationship between student’s MBTI, preferences and

academic performance at a Syrian university. Education & Training, 56(1), 78–90.

https://doi-org.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/10.1108/ET-09-2012-0090

Bullock-Yowell, E., Mcconnell, A. E., & Schedin, E. A. (2014). Decided and Undecided

Students: Career Self-efficacy, Negative Thinking, and Decision-Making

Difficulties. NACADA Journal, 34(1), 22-34. doi:10.12930/nacada-13-016

Dennis, B. D. (2007). Retaining Exploring Students: A Comparison Study of Decided and

Undecided College Students. Dissertations. 850.

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/850Fabio, A. D., Palazzeschi, L., Asulin-

Peretz, L., & Gati, I. (2013). Career indecision versus indecisiveness: Associations with

personality traits and emotional intelligence. Journal of Career Assessment, 21(1), 42-56.

doi:10.1177/1069072712454698

Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2009). Emotional intelligence, personality traits, and career

decision difficulties. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 9,

135–146. doi:10.1007/s10775-009-9162-3

https://doi-org.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/10.1108/ET-09-2012-0090

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/850


Di Fabio, A., Palazzeschi, L., Levin, N., & Gati, I. (2015). The role of personality in the career

decision-making difficulties of Italian young adults. Journal of Career Assessment, 23(2),

281–293. https://doi-org.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/10.1177/1069072714535031

Frederiksen, P. B. (2009). Perfectionism and career indecision among undecided college

students (Order No. 3379334). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I;

ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304989924). Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/304989924?accountid=2909

Gati, I., Asulin-Peretz, L., & Fisher, A. (2012). Emotional and Personality-related Career

decision-making Difficulties: A 3-year follow-up. The Counseling Psychologist, 40(1), 6–

27. https://doi-org.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/10.1177/0011000011398726

Gordon, V. N. (1995). The undecided college student: An academic and career advising

challenge (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Gordon, V. (1994). (Ed.). Issues in advising undecided college students. Monograph no. 15

Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for the Freshman Year Experience, University

of South Carolina.

Green, R. J., & Hill, J. H. (2003). Sex and higher education: Do men and women attend college

for different reasons? College Student Journal, 37(4), 557–563. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN

=2004-10813-010&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Guay, F., Senécal, C., Gauthier, L., & Fernet, C. (2003). Predicting career indecision: A self-

determination theory perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(2), 165–177.

doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.50.2.165

Hirsh, S. K. (1991). Using the Myer's Briggs Type Indicator in organizations (2nd ed.).

https://doi-org.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/10.1177/1069072714535031


https://doi-org.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/10.1177/0011000011398726

http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2004-10813-010&site=ehost-live&scope=site



Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Hitchcock, J. T. (2012). An analysis of a career decision-making course’s effect on retaining

academically undecided freshmen college students [ProQuest Information & Learning].

In Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences (Vol.

72, Issue 9–A, p. 3134).

Huang, S. (2001). The effect of family environment, personality, and self-efficacy on career

indecision of college students [ProQuest Information & Learning]. In Dissertation

Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences (Vol. 62, Issue 6–A, p.

2028).

Jemini-Gashi, L. (2012). Career maturity and decisionmaking of Kosovo adolescents for choice

of profession. Announcements from the scientific conference “Science Week.” MEST.

Jemini-Gashi, L., Duraku, Z. H., & Kelmendi, K. (2019). Associations between social support,

career self-efficacy, and career indecision among youth. Current Psychology,

doi:10.1007/s12144-019-00402-x

Kelly, K. R., & Lee, W.-C. (2002). Mapping the Domain of Career Decision Problems. Journal

of Vocational Behavior, 61(2), 302–326. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.2001.1858

Kelly, K. R., & Shin, Y. J. (2009). Relation of neuroticism and negative career thoughts and

feelings to lack of information. Journal of Career Assessment, 17, 201–213.

doi:10.1177/1069072708329029

Kennedy, R. B., & Kennedy, D. A. (2004). Using the myers-briggs type indicator® in career

counseling. Journal of Employment Counseling, 41(1), 38–43. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-

1920.2004.tb00876.x


Krieshok, T. S., Black, M. D., & McKay, R. A. (2009). Career decision making: The limits of

rationality and the abundance of non-conscious processes. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 75, 275–290.

Krumboltz, J. D. (2009). The happenstance learning theory. Journal of Career Assessment, 17,

135–154. doi:10.1177/1069072708328861

Lam, M., & Santos, A. (2018). The Impact of a College Career Intervention Program on Career

Decision Self-Efficacy, Career Indecision, and Decision-Making Difficulties. Journal of

Career Assessment, 26(3), 425–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072717714539

Leu, K. (2017, December 7). Beginning College Students Who Change Their Majors Within 3

Years of Enrollment. Retrieved from

https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2018434

Lewallen, W. C. (1995). Students Decided and Undecided About Career Choice: A Comparison

of College Achievement and Student Involvement. NACADA Journal, 15(1), 22–30. doi:

10.12930/0271-9517-15.1.22

Li, X., Hou, Z., & Feng, M. (2013). Relationships between parental career expectation, proactive

personality, career adaptability and career decision-making difficulty among Chinese

college students. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21(2), 263–267.

Lipshits-Braziler, Y., Braunstein-Bercovitz, H., & Kapach-Royf, N. (2019). Strategies for coping

with career indecision during the college-to-work transition: Concurrent and predictive

validity. Journal of Career Assessment, 27(3), 440–456. https://doi-

org.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/10.1177/1069072718759983


Lipshits-Braziler, Y., Gati, I., & Tatar, M. (2016). Strategies for Coping with Career

Indecision. Journal of Career Assessment, 24(1), 42–

66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072714566795

La Guardia, A. C. (2013). Review of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). In D. Hays & C.

Wood (Eds.), A counselor’s guide to career assessment instruments (6th ed., pp. 384-

389). Alexandra, VA: National Career Development Association.

Lok, C. (2012). Career development: Whats your type? Nature, 488(7412), 545–547. doi:

10.1038/nj7412-545a

Martincin, K. M., & Stead, G. B. (2015). Five-Factor Model and Difficulties in Career Decision

Making: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Career Assessment, 23(1), 3–

19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072714523081

Marcionetti, J., & Rossier, J. (2017). The Mediating Impact of Parental Support on the

Relationship Between Personality and Career Indecision in Adolescents. Journal of

Career Assessment, 25(4), 601–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072716652890

McCaulley, M. H., & Martin, C. R. (1995). Career assessment and the Myers-Briggs Type

Indicator. Journal of Career Assessment, 3(2), 219–239. https://doi-


Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1992). Manual, a guide to the development and use of the

Myers-Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto, Calif: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). Manual: A guide to the

development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (3 rd Ed.). Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologist Press.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072714566795

https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072714523081

https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072716652890


National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2017). Percentage of 2011–12 First Time

Postsecondary Students Who Had Ever Declared a Major in an Associate’s or Bachelor’s

Degree Program Within 3 Years of Enrollment, by Type of Degree Program and Control

of First Institution: 2014. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Washington, DC. https://nces.ed.gov/datalab/tableslibrary/viewtable.aspx?tableid=11764.

Nowack, K. (1996). Is the Myers Briggs Type Indicator the Right Tool to Use? Performance in

Practice, American Society of Training and Development, Fall 1996, 6.

Osipow, S. H. (1999). Assessing career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 147–154.

Passmore, J., Holloway, M., & Rawle-Cope, M. (2010). Using MBTI type to explore differences

and the implications for practice for therapists and coaches: Are executive coaches really

like counsellors? Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 23(1), 1–16. https://doi-


Rossier, J. (2015). Personality and career interventions. In Hartung, P. J., Savickas, M. L., Walsh,

W. B. (Eds.), APA handbook of career intervention: Foundations (vol. 1, pp. 327–

350). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/1438-018

Schenck, P. M. (2010). Analyzing the relationship of strengths to personality preferences and

vocational interests utilizing Clifton StrengthsFinder, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, and

Strong Interest Inventory. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and

Social Sciences. ProQuest Information & Learning. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN

=2010-99171-042&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Slaney, R. B. (1988). The assessment of career decision making. In W. B. Walsh & S. H. Osipow

(Eds.), Career decision making (pp. 33–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.




The Myers-Briggs Company. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.themyersbriggs.com/ Myers‐

Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)—A positive framework for life‐long people development.

Retrieved from https://www.themyersbriggs.com/en‐US/Products‐and‐Services/Myers‐

Briggs

Workman, J. L. (2013). Undecided first year college students' experiences with academic

advising at miami university (Order No. 3667178). Available from ProQuest Dissertations

& Theses A&I; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1642488304). Retrieved from


Workman, J. L. (2015). Undecided first year college students’ experiences with academic

advising at Miami University [ProQuest Information & Learning]. In Dissertation

Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences (Vol. 76, Issue 4–

A(E)).

Xu, H., & Bhang, C. H. (2019). The Structure and Measurement of Career Indecision: A Critical

Review. The Career Development Quarterly, 67(1), 2–20. doi: 10.1002/cdq.12159

Zakaria, W. F. A. W. (2012). Alvin Toffler: knowledge, technology and change in future society.

Zhang, S., Ding, L., Hu, D., & Si, J. (2016). Relationship between self-supporting personality

and career decision-making difficulties in college students: A mediating role of state-trait

anxiety. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24(4), 684–688.

https://www.themyersbriggs.com/

https://www.themyersbriggs.com/en‐US/Products‐and‐Services/Myers‐Briggs

https://www.themyersbriggs.com/en‐US/Products‐and‐Services/Myers‐Briggs


Investigating Relationship between Personality Traits and ...

Documents

Transcript of Investigating Relationship between Personality Traits and ...