major theories of career development, choice, and adjustment, Summaries of Psychology

Download major theories of career development, choice, and adjustment and more Summaries Psychology in PDF only on Docsity! S E C T I O N O N E MAJOR THEORIES OF CAREER DEVELOPMENT, CHOICE, AND ADJUSTMENT c01.qxd 8/5/04 8:56 AM Page 1 CO PYRIG HTED M ATERIA L c01.qxd 8/5/04 8:56 AM Page 2 The Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment 5 BASIC CONCEPTS As a psychological theory, TWA’s focus is on P and P’s behavior. However, P does not exist or behave in a vacuum; rather, P always exists and behaves in an E. Any the- ory about P has to be a theory about P-in-an-E. The theory of work adjustment begins with the assumptions that (1) as a liv- ing organism, P has requirements that have to be met, many or even most of them through E; (2) P has capabilities that enable it to meet these requirements; and (3) much of P’s behavior in interacting with E is about meeting these re- quirements. Among the most important of P’s requirements are needs: biological needs that have to do with P’s survival and psychological needs that have to do with P’s well-being. Needs are presumed to develop from the genetic material inherited by P, conditioned by the many Es to which P is exposed, until some state of rela- tive stability is reached, typically in adulthood. Many of P’s needs in adulthood can be met at work. In TWA, the E of concern is the work environment, which in our contemporary world is effectively the work organization. TWA, then, is about P as worker and employee, and E as work envi- ronment and work organization. As an operating principle, TWA conceptualizes P and E as parallel and comple- mentary. Thus, TWA assumes that E (in parallel with P) also has requirements that have to be met and capabilities that enable it to meet its requirements. Com- plementarily, some of E’s requirements can be met by P in the same way that some of P’s requirements can be met by E. Thus, in work, P and E come together be- cause each has some requirements that the other can meet. Fulfillment of their requirements results in satisfaction for P and E. To differenti- ate E’s satisfaction from P’s satisfaction, TWA terms E’s satisfaction with P as the satisfactoriness of P, reserving the term satisfaction to denote P’s satisfaction with E. The two constructs, satisfaction and satisfactoriness, imply and extend to their negatives, dissatisfaction and unsatisfactoriness. Thus, at the dichotomous level, there are four possible states in which P can be: satisfied and satisfactory, satisfied but unsatisfactory, dissatisfied but satisfactory, or dissatisfied and unsatisfactory. TWA expects the first state to be conducive to behavior that maintains the P-E in- teraction (maintenance behavior) and the other three states to result eventually in be- havior to change the situation (adjustment behavior). At the extreme, the P-E interaction may be terminated (P either quits or is fired). But as long as P is tolera- bly satisfied and satisfactory, P remains in, and is retained by, E. The length of time P stays in E is termed tenure in TWA. These three outcomes—the satisfaction, satis- factoriness, and tenure of P in a given work E—are the basic indicators of work ad- justment, according to TWA. As mentioned, P has capabilities, some of which can be used to satisfy E’s re- quirements (or some of them). P’s capabilities that matter most to E are P’s skills. Work skills are drawn from basic human skills: cognitive, affective, motor, physical, and sensory-perceptual. Like needs, basic skills are presumed to originate from P’s inherited genetic material and are shaped through learning (experience and train- ing) via exposure to a variety of Es. Though basic skills may reach relative stability (typically in adulthood), P continues to acquire new skills (such as work skills) de- veloped from basic skills all through life. c01.qxd 8/5/04 8:56 AM Page 5 6 MAJOR THEORIES OF CAREER DEVELOPMENT, CHOICE, AND ADJUSTMENT At work, E’s requirements of P are about getting the work done and maintain- ing or improving the organization. One way to describe E’s requirements is to ex- press them in terms of E’s skill requirements for P, the set of skills P has to have to get the work done and to maintain or improve the organization. E, likewise, has capabilities, some of which enable it to satisfy P’s needs (or some of them). The ones that matter most to P are E’s reinforcement capabilities, that is, E’s ability to deliver reinforcers (borrowing a construct from behavioral psychology) to satisfy P’s needs. Some examples of E’s work reinforcers are pay, prestige, and working conditions. One way to describe P’s needs is in terms of the reinforcers that P requires of E. That is, needs may be viewed as reinforcer requirements. Thus, TWA uses two constructs to describe P: needs (reinforcer requirements) and skills (response capabilities). Two complementary constructs are used to de- scribe E: reinforcers (reinforcement capabilities) and skill requirements (response requirements). That is, the P and E constructs are parallel and complementary. The central construct in TWA is P-E correspondence. P-E correspondence has two meanings in TWA. The first is fit between P and E as ascertained across commen- surate variables. This is the meaning used in TWA’s predictive model, where P’s satisfaction and satisfactoriness are each predicted from a P-E correspondence variable. In each case, the P-E correspondence variable reflects the degree to which each meets the requirements of the other. The second meaning of P-E correspondence is that of coresponsiveness, the mu- tual responding of P to E and E to P, that is, the interaction of P and E. This is the meaning used in TWA’s process model. THEORY OF WORK ADJUSTMENT’S PREDICTIVE MODEL In TWA’s predictive model, P’s satisfaction and satisfactoriness are the depend- ent variables that are predicted from two P-E correspondence variables: 1. The correspondence of E’s reinforcers to P’s needs (reinforcer require- ments) predicts P’s satisfaction. 2. The correspondence of P’s skills to E’s skill requirements predicts P’s satis- factoriness. In turn, P’s satisfaction and satisfactoriness (actual or predicted) predict P’s tenure in E. Factor analysis can be used to summarize the large number of needs and skills in a fewer number of factors or reference dimensions. These factors yield scores that have proven to be more stable and more reliable than the need and skill scores and thus are more useful in prediction. Furthermore, factors can be used to estimate needs and skills that P does not have but could potentially acquire, and such estimated scores would be useful in counseling to help clients forecast the types of work that they might do in the future in which they would be most satisfied and satisfactory. These factors are designated in TWA by the terms val- ues (for need factors) and abilities (for skill factors). That is, in TWA, values are de- fined as reference dimensions underlying needs, and abilities are reference dimensions underlying skills. Inasmuch as P-E correspondence requires com- mensurate variables on the E side, parallel reference dimensions underlying E’s c01.qxd 8/5/04 8:56 AM Page 6 The Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment 7 reinforcers and skill requirements are termed reinforcer factors and ability require- ments, respectively. These four new constructs—values, abilities, reinforcer factors, and ability requirements—were incorporated into the TWA predictive model. Thus, the new P-E correspondence variables are: 1. The correspondence of E’s reinforcer factors to P’s values. 2. The correspondence of P’s abilities to E’s ability requirements. Figure 1.1 diagrams the basic TWA predictive model. Figure 1.1 shows P Satisfaction as being predicted (solid line with arrow) from E-Reinforcers-to-P-Values Correspondence (Reinforcer Factors is shortened to Rein- forcers for convenience in drawing the figure). P Satisfactoriness is predicted from P-Abilities-to-E-Requirements Correspondence (Ability Requirements is shortened to Requirements). P Satisfaction and P Satisfactoriness are shown to predict P Tenure through the unobserved (dashed boxes) decision variables of Remain/Quit for P and Retain/Fire for E. IMPROVING PREDICTION Prediction can be improved by the use of moderator variables. Moderator variables are variables that affect (moderate) the correlation between two variables. To im- prove the prediction of satisfaction and satisfactoriness from P-E correspondence variables, TWA proposes that each moderate the prediction of the other. That is, P Satisfactoriness moderates the correlation between E-Reinforcers-to-P-Values Cor- respondence and P Satisfaction. This predictive correlation will be higher for sat- isfactory workers and lower for unsatisfactory workers (or for more satisfactory versus less satisfactory workers, respectively). In like manner, P Satisfaction mod- erates the correlation between P-Abilities-to-E-Requirements Correspondence and P Satisfactoriness. This predictive correlation will be higher for satisfied (or more satisfied) workers and lower for dissatisfied (or less satisfied) workers. Figure 1.1 The Basic TWA Predictive Model. E Reinforcers to P Values Correspondence P Satisfaction P Satisfactoriness P Abilities to E Requirements Correspondence P Tenure Remain/ Quit Retain/ Fire c01.qxd 8/5/04 8:56 AM Page 7 10 MAJOR THEORIES OF CAREER DEVELOPMENT, CHOICE, AND ADJUSTMENT THEORY OF WORK ADJUSTMENT VAR I ABLES AND THEI R ME ASU RE MENT In this section, the TWA variables are defined in more detail, and conventional psychometric ways of measuring them are discussed. However, TWA variables can be measured in other ways (see Other Instruments and Other Methods sec- tion) if the psychometric measures described are not available. SATISFACTION In TWA, satisfaction is treated as a state variable, defined as an affective response to the cognitive evaluation of P-E correspondence (perception of how well E’s re- inforcers correspond to P’s values and needs). A positive affective response is sat- isfaction; a negative one is dissatisfaction. Satisfaction, so defined, is a variable with many different referents. Work satis- faction has at least three: job satisfaction, occupational satisfaction, and career satisfaction. TWA research has been concerned mainly with job satisfaction, that is, satisfaction with the reinforcers found on the job. However, TWA research has on occasion examined satisfaction with occupational and career reinforcers. Figure 1.3 The TWA Process Model. Yes No P Perseverance P Maintenance Behavior P Adjustment Behavior P Flexibility E Reinforcers to P Needs Correspondence E Perseverance E Adjustment Behavior E Maintenance Behavior P Skills to E Requirements Correspondence E Flexibility P Satisfactoriness (E Satisfaction) P Satisfaction No Yes c01.qxd 8/5/04 8:56 AM Page 10 The Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment 11 Satisfaction-dissatisfaction is typically measured via questionnaires to elicit respondents’ descriptions of their affective responses. Job satisfaction measures are of two types: global and facet. Global measures elicit respondents’ overall sat- isfaction with the job, taking all facets into account. Facet measures elicit respon- dents’ satisfactions for a variety of work facets (such as pay, working conditions, and ability utilization). Facet measures typically report facet scores as well as total scores (sum of facet or item scores), whereas global measures report a single score representing the level of overall satisfaction (see also Fritzsche & Parrish, Chapter 8, this volume). For its research, the Work Adjustment Project developed a facet measure of work satisfaction, the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ; Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967), with scales yielding scores for 20 facets, two factor- based scores (Intrinsic and Extrinsic Satisfaction), and a total score (General Satis- faction) summed across all items. The 20 MSQ facets are ability utilization, achievement, activity, advancement, authority, company policies and practices, compensation, coworkers, creativity, independence, moral values, recognition, re- sponsibility, security, social service, social status, supervision—human relations, supervision—technical, variety, and working conditions. These 20 facets do not by any means exhaust the domain of work reinforcers, but substantive research on TWA had to begin somewhere, and the 20 facets appeared to be a good place to start. They continue to be empirically and practically useful. NEEDS AND VALUES Inasmuch as TWA hypothesizes that satisfaction is a function of need/value- reinforcer correspondence, a 20-need Minnesota Importance Questionnaire (MIQ; Gay, Weiss, Hendel, Dawis, & Lofquist, 1971) was developed to parallel the MSQ. The same 20 work facets were used in the two instruments, the difference being the question asked of the respondents: “How satisfied are you with this facet?” (MSQ) versus, “How important is this facet to you?” (MIQ). Several factor analyses of the 20 MIQ need scales showed that a six-factor struc- ture was the best representation. The six factors were termed values because re- sponse to the MIQ involved a judgment of “importance” (Lofquist & Dawis, 1978). These six MIQ values are achievement, altruism, autonomy, comfort, safety, and status. Each is scored from component need scales, which is why the MIQ is de- scribed as “a measure of needs and values” (Rounds, Henly, Dawis, Lofquist, & Weiss, 1981). Values in TWA are considered trait variables, even more so than needs. Rounds and Armstrong (Chapter 13, this volume) describe the MIQ and its uses more completely. REINFORCERS AND REINFORCER FACTORS These E variables were theoretically required to enable the construction of a P-E correspondence variable as the predictor for satisfaction. To simplify matters, a commensurate approach to correspondence was adopted; it was assumed that each need could be paired with a commensurable reinforcer. The Minnesota Job Description Questionnaire (MJDQ; Borgen, Weiss, Tinsley, Dawis, & Lofquist, 1968) was developed to measure the same 20 reinforcers (work facets) used in the MSQ and MIQ. This time, the instrument question was, in effect, “How much is this facet descriptive of the job?” c01.qxd 8/5/04 8:56 AM Page 11 12 MAJOR THEORIES OF CAREER DEVELOPMENT, CHOICE, AND ADJUSTMENT The MJDQ was also used to generate Occupational Reinforcer Patterns (ORPs; Stewart et al., 1986). Each ORP consists of a profile of scores, one score for each re- inforcer, descriptive of an occupation’s reinforcers as rated by either incumbents or supervisors. The data for a subset of 109 ORPs, selected to approximate the occupational distribution of the employed labor force, were subjected to factor analysis (Shubsachs, Rounds, Dawis, & Lofquist, 1978). The three factors that emerged represented combinations of scales that were parallels of the six MIQ values: achievement-autonomy-status, safety-comfort, and altruism. These were identi- fied as a self-reinforcement factor, an environmental reinforcement factor, and a social reinforcement factor, respectively. Thus, the MJDQ, the MIQ, and the MSQ provided a set of commensurate instruments for reinforcers, needs/values, and satisfaction, all referring to the same 20 work facets. This research also led to the development of the Minnesota Occupational Classification System (MOCS; now in its third edition as MOCS III; Dawis, Dohm, Lofquist, Chartrand, & Due, 1987), which classifies a large number of occupations by the degree to which self, environmental, and social needs and values are reinforced (see Gore & Hitch, Chapter 16, this volume). SATISFACTORINESS In TWA, satisfactoriness is actually a satisfaction variable—E’s satisfaction with P as worker and employee, and with P’s performance in carrying out work duties and P’s behavior as a member of the work organization. The Minnesota Satisfac- toriness Scales (MSS; Gibson, Weiss, Dawis, & Lofquist, 1970) is a rating instru- ment that is to be completed by P’s employer or employer representative, usually the work supervisor. It consists of 28 items organized into four factor-based scales: Performance, Conformance, Personal Adjustment, and Dependability. A fifth score, General Satisfactoriness, is the sum of all item scores. As a satisfaction variable, satisfactoriness is considered a state variable. SKILLS AND ABILITIES Skills are repeatable behavior sequences performed in response to prescribed tasks. Skills vary on a number of dimensions: content of the task, difficulty of the task, time needed to do the task (speed), and effort expended on the task, among others. Workers can be categorized by the sets of work skills they possess. (For an extended treatment of skills and abilities, see Lubinski & Dawis, 1992.) Basic skills consist of a few groups: sensory and perceptual skills, cognitive and affective skills, and motor and physical skills. Higher order skills involve different combinations of basic skills. So-called ability tests are tests of higher order skills. When such tests are factor analyzed, a hierarchical factor structure is commonly found (Carroll, 1993). At the top is a general factor, Spearman’s g or general abil- ity. Next are group factors that typically refer to content (e.g., verbal ability, nu- merical ability, spatial ability). Below these are specific ability factors (e.g., reading comprehension, vocabulary, knowledge of grammar), each of which may be measured by several skill tests. Because it was well constructed and available, the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB; U.S. Department of Labor, 1970; see also Ryan Krane & Tirre, Chapter 14, this volume) was used in TWA research as the measure of skills and abilities. The c01.qxd 8/5/04 8:56 AM Page 12 The Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment 15 and tenure, as attested to by an extensive literature. And interests correlate lowly with needs, values, skills, and abilities (Dawis, 1991). Thus, although TWA does not mention it, interests are an important variable to include in any research about work and careers. Another important one of these “other” variables is personality (shorthand for personality traits measured by questionnaires and inventories). Like interests, there is an extensive literature on measured personality traits. Like interests, measured personality traits are well-known correlates of behavioral outcomes, such as satisfaction, satisfactoriness, and tenure. Like interests, personality traits should be included in research about work and careers. For example, conscien- tiousness, openness to experience, and emotional stability (neuroticism) have been shown to predict adult occupational level and income ( Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999). The theory of work adjustment considers interests and personality traits as higher order, more complex, variables that can be derived from the more funda- mental TWA variables of structure and style. This belief has not been tested, but it has been shown that interests and personality traits correlate only modestly (0.20s to 0.30s) with values and abilities (Dawis, 1991). Yet another set of “other factors” is that of family factors. This includes com- plex variables such as family culture, family expectations, and family socioeco- nomic status. Family culture is a loose amalgam of variables including family structure (e.g., nuclear versus extended, two- versus one-parent, number of chil- dren, decision-making structure, bonding, closeness). Family expectations are by-products of family culture. Family financial status is always an important fac- tor. These family factors find their way directly or indirectly into the causal chain of career development and work adjustment. A final set of “other factors” is the labor market. Demand and supply of jobs in P’s particular occupation is important to consider. Availability of training oppor- tunities, cost of such, frictional factors such as discrimination—all of these and many others may be hypothesized to affect the causal chain of career develop- ment and work adjustment in important ways and in particular situations. There may be other factors to consider. Some, or even many, of them may be cor- related with TWA variables or may moderate their predictive value. As we found out when we first began our research, one can go on and on postulating indepen- dent variables that may have significant effects, but that can easily dissipate one’s research efforts—which, in the first place, is where theory comes in—to narrow and limit the focus of research. And that is what TWA did for us. OTHER INSTRUMENTS AND OTHER METHODS Much of TWA research has employed the MIQ, MSQ, MSS, MJDQ, and ORPs—in- struments developed for TWA. One misconception in the field is that research on TWA can be done only with these instruments. This kind of misconception is held about other theories as well, which is unfortunate because a theory is only about constructs and their interrelations and not about the measures for the constructs. Different investigators can use different instruments for the same constructs and even use different analyses to probe for the presence of the same relations. In fact, support for a theory is more robust when it comes from the use of other instru- ments and other methodologies and analytic approaches. c01.qxd 8/5/04 8:56 AM Page 15 16 MAJOR THEORIES OF CAREER DEVELOPMENT, CHOICE, AND ADJUSTMENT Insofar as TWA is concerned, there are many other good instruments available to measure its basic constructs: satisfaction, satisfactoriness, needs, values, skills, abilities. Only the style variables do not have adequate instruments because of their novelty, but, in time, this lack may be addressed. Theory of Work Adjustment variables may also be assessed by methods other than the use of psychometric instruments. When psychometric instruments are unavailable or cannot be used, counselors can still implement TWA by using other methods of assessment. For example, the method of estimation or judgment by rating or ranking (used with style variables as described previously) may be used to assess needs, values, skills, abilities, and other TWA variables. Ways to ensure validity and reliability of ratings and rankings are described in the litera- ture (e.g., Guilford, 1954). The method of inference may also be used in conjunction with the corollaries of the TWA Propositions (see Table 1.1 on pages 20–21). For example, Corollary IIA says that if you know the reinforcers of P’s previous job and you know P’s satis- faction with that job, you may infer P’s values—without benefit of direct measure- ment. Corollary IIB says that if you know P’s values and P’s satisfaction in a job, you may infer what the reinforcers in that job might be. RESE ARC H ON THE THEORY OF WORK ADJUSTMENT Chapter limits prevent the presentation of TWA research in detail (for more com- plete coverage, see Dawis & Lofquist, 1984, pp. 69–94, and Dawis, 1996, pp. 98–102). The research is summarized here. Support is strong for the first three propositions of TWA (see Table 1.1), which are about the roles of satisfaction and satisfactoriness in work adjustment and the prediction of satisfaction and satisfactoriness. This support comes not just from TWA research but, more convincingly, from the research of many other investiga- tors using instruments other than those developed for TWA research. For exam- ple, every validity study of ability tests as predictors of rated performance in any occupation is support for Proposition III, which states that satisfactoriness is pre- dictable from ability-requirement correspondence. Support for the tenure propositions (VI, VII, and VIII) is also strong and comes from both TWA and other research. The relation of satisfaction to tenure is par- ticularly strong, backed by an extensive literature. The remaining propositions, especially the style propositions (X–XVII), have not been studied to any great extent. A few studies show some support for the modera- tor relation propositions (IV and V). Aspects of the style propositions have been studied, with mixed results, the main problem being that of measuring the vari- ables. There is some reason to believe that the measurement of these style variables as traits might lie in personality measurement (i.e., the measurement of personal- ity traits via questionnaires and inventories). A PPLICAT IONS OF THE THEORY OF WORK ADJUSTMENT Theories have a heuristic use; therefore, it helps if the theory is framed in such a way that makes it easy to remember and recall. In this regard, TWA has a c01.qxd 8/5/04 8:56 AM Page 16 The Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment 17 mnemonic advantage in the binary symmetry of its constructs: person and envi- ronment, correspondence and satisfaction, requirement and capability, response and reinforcement, satisfaction and satisfactoriness, needs and skills, values and abilities, structure and style, maintenance and adjustment, celerity and en- durance, pace and rhythm, flexibility and perseverance, activeness and reactive- ness, tenure and termination. Moreover, these paired constructs are organized by just two principles: (1) Correspondence makes for satisfaction, and (2) dissatisfac- tion drives adjustment behavior. The theory of work adjustment can be used heuristically to organize facts, aid conceptualization, and suggest approaches to intervention. With the TWA con- structs as basic conceptual tools, we can tackle a variety of problems, as illus- trated in the following discussions about career development, career choice, and career counseling. DEVELOPMENTAL INTERVENTIONS Education literally means “bringing out.” What is to be “brought out?” From the earliest times, schools have focused on bringing out capabilities, on developing skills and abilities. Only tangentially have requirements been touched on. TWA maintains that a focus on requirements is just as important as that on capabilities. Children have to learn about their needs and values much more explicitly, to the same extent that they learn about their skills and abilities. Learning is acquisi- tion. Hence, TWA proposes that needs and values have to be acquired in the same way that skills and abilities are acquired. And in such learning, we must attend to individual differences, with proper respect for the child and the child’s family. If teachers are to facilitate self-knowledge in children, they first have to be ex- pert at assessing needs, values, skills, and abilities on the fly, that is, on the basis of ordinary information available in the everyday classroom. Standardized instru- ments can help and are likely to be used by counselors, but everyday observations can be useful and are much less intrusive if teachers are skilled in using them in assessment. Next, teachers and counselors have to know how to teach each child how to assess self, which in turn depends on knowing the child’s response capa- bilities and reinforcement requirements. But learning about needs, skills, values, and abilities can be problematic and even traumatic to the child who compares self with other children. A possible an- tidote is to teach children early about individual differences and all its implica- tions and about TWA’s message that besides individual differences there are environmental differences and that the optimal environment is different for each child—which might help children become more cognizant and respectful of their own and others’ individualities. In addition to having appropriate skills, teachers and counselors should be aware of their own needs and values, that is, their own reinforcement require- ments. They should know how to assess their correspondences with various Es, which in the school setting includes each of their pupils and their parents. Such knowledge might help them understand their differential effectiveness with dif- ferent children. One matter TWA addresses explicitly is environments. Each E has distinctive features with respect to skill requirements and reinforcement capabilities. At the start, the child has only a few “salient Es” (Lofquist & Dawis, 1991), but these c01.qxd 8/5/04 8:56 AM Page 17 20 MAJOR THEORIES OF CAREER DEVELOPMENT, CHOICE, AND ADJUSTMENT see things rationally, to get a comprehensive grasp of the situation, and to generate possible approaches to solving the problem. TWA tells the dissatisfied worker to examine both antecedents and consequences, specifically, the antecedent of P-E correspondence and the consequence of P and E behavior. TWA also points to the basic approaches to adjustment open to P: activeness, by getting E to change E’s re- inforcements and/or skill requirements, and reactiveness, by changing P’s need hi- erarchy and/or skill repertoire. Although TWA does not mention it explicitly, one problem that has to be re- solved when there is dissatisfaction is the question of perception versus reality. TWA’s conception of satisfaction makes it clear that perception plays a role in satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Thus, it is important for the dissatisfied worker to test reality in as many ways as possible. One of the better ways to do this is to seek work or career counseling by a competent career counselor, preferably—in TWA’s view—one versed in TWA. A FINAL APPLICATION: FROM THEORY OF WORK ADJUSTMENT TO PERSON-ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENCE The Theory of Work Adjustment refers to one environment encountered by P, but obviously, P encounters many other environments. TWA constructs and re- lations can be generalized to apply to any environment and has been termed person-environment correspondence (PEC) theory. Expositions of PEC theory are given in Lofquist and Dawis (1991) and Dawis (2002), and we recommend these to students interested in helping clients achieve greater satisfaction and satis- factoriness in their family, interpersonal, intimate relations, and other impor- tant nonwork environments. Table 1.1 Formal Propositions of the Theory of Work Adjustment (TWA) P = Person in an environment (E). The following are restatements of the 17 propositions of TWA presented in Dawis and Lofquist (1984). The revisions are of two kinds: (1) The propositions are renumbered to give priority of place to satisfaction. Thus, for example, Proposition II in the 1984 propositions was about satisfactoriness and Proposition III about satisfaction; here it is reversed; and (2) the variable names are those used in Figures 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3. For example, satisfaction in the 1984 propositions is now P Satisfaction and satisfactoriness is now P Satisfactoriness. Otherwise, the content and substance remain the same in this version as they were in the 1984 set. Proposition I. Work adjustment at any time is indicated by the concurrent levels of P Sat- isfaction and P Satisfactoriness. Proposition II. P Satisfaction is predicted from E Reinforcers to P Values Correspondence, provided that there is P Abilities to E Ability Requirements Correspondence. Corollary IIA. Knowledge of E Reinforcers and P Satisfaction permits the inference of P Values. Corollary IIB. Knowledge of P Values and P Satisfaction permits the inference of E Reinforcers. c01.qxd 8/5/04 8:56 AM Page 20 The Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment 21 Table 1.1 (Continued) Proposition III. P Satisfactoriness is predicted from P Abilities to E Ability Requirements Correspondence, provided that there is E Reinforcers to P Values Correspondence. Corollary IIIA. Knowledge of P Abilities and P Satisfactoriness permits the inference of E Ability Requirements. Corollary IIIB. Knowledge of E Ability Requirements and P Satisfactoriness permits the inference of P Abilities. Proposition IV. P Satisfactoriness moderates the prediction of P Satisfaction from E Re- inforcers to P Values Correspondence. Proposition V. P Satisfaction moderates the prediction of P Satisfactoriness from P Abil- ities to E Ability Requirements Correspondence. Proposition VI. The probability that P will quit E is inversely related to P Satisfaction. Proposition VII. The probability that E will fire P is inversely related to P Satisfactoriness. Proposition VIII. P Tenure is predicted from P Satisfaction and P Satisfactoriness. Given Propositions II, III, and VIII: Corollary VIIIA. P Tenure is predicted from E Reinforcers to P Values Correspondence and P Abilities to E Ability Requirements Correspondence. Corollary VIIIB. P Tenure is predicted from P-E Correspondence. Proposition IX. P-E Correspondence increases as a function of P Tenure. Proposition X. P Style to E Style Correspondence moderates the prediction of P Satis- faction and P Satisfactoriness from P Values/Abilities to E Reinforcers/Requirements Correspondence. Proposition XI. P Flexibility moderates the prediction of P Satisfaction from E Reinforcers to P Values Correspondence. Proposition XII. E Flexibility moderates the prediction of P Satisfactoriness from P Abili- ties to E Ability Requirements Correspondence. Proposition XIII. The probability that P Adjustment Behavior will occur is inversely related to P Satisfaction. Corollary XIIIA. Knowledge of this probability associated with P Satisfaction permits the determination of the P Flexibility threshold. Proposition XIV. The probability that E Adjustment Behavior will occur is inversely related to P Satisfactoriness. Corollary XIVA. Knowledge of this probability associated with P Satisfactoriness permits the determination of the E Flexibility threshold. Proposition XV. The probability that P will quit E is inversely related to P Perseverance. Corollary XVA. Knowledge of this probability associated with P’s quitting E permits the determination of the P Perseverance threshold. Proposition XVI. The probability that E will fire P is inversely related to E Perseverance. Corollary XVIA. Knowledge of this probability associated with E’s firing P permits the determination of the E Perseverance threshold. Given Propositions VIII, XV, and XVI: Proposition XVII. P Tenure is predicted jointly from P Satisfaction, P Satisfactoriness, P Perseverance, and E Perseverance. c01.qxd 8/5/04 8:56 AM Page 21 22 MAJOR THEORIES OF CAREER DEVELOPMENT, CHOICE, AND ADJUSTMENT REFE RENCES Borgen, F. H., Weiss, D. J., Tinsley, H. E. A., Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1968). The measurement of occupational reinforcer patterns. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Re- habilitation (No. XXV), 1–89. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Industrial Rela- tions Center. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cheung, F. M. (1975). A threshold model of f lexibility as a personality style dimension in work adjustment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Dawis, R. V. (1991). Vocational interests, values, and preferences. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 833–871). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Dawis, R. V. (1992). The individual differences tradition in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 7–19. Dawis, R. V. (1996). The theory of work adjustment and person-environment-correspondence counseling. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates (Eds.), Career choice and development (3rd ed., pp. 75–120). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dawis, R. V. (2000). The person-environment tradition in counseling psychology. In W. E. Martin Jr. & J. L. Swartz-Kulstad (Eds.), Person-environment psychology and mental health (pp. 91–111). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dawis, R. V. (2002). Person-environment-correspondence theory. In D. Brown & Associ- ates. Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 427–464). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dawis, R. V., Dohm, T. E., Lofquist, L. H., Chartrand, J. M., & Due, A. M. (1987). Minnesota Occupational Classification System III: A psychological taxonomy of work. Minneapolis: Uni- versity of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, Vocational Psychology Research. Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1964). A theory of work adjustment. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation (No. XV), 1–27. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Industrial Relations Center. Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Dawis, R. V., Lofquist, L. H., & Weiss, D. J. (1968). A theory of work adjustment (revision). Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation (No. XXIII), 1–14. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Industrial Relations Center. Dawis, R. V., & Weiss, D. J. (1994). Minnesota Ability Test Battery: Technical manual. Min- neapolis: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, Vocational Psychology Research. Gay, E. G., Weiss, D. J., Hendel, D. D., Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1971). Manual for the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation (No. XXVIII), 1–83. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Industrial Relations Center. Gibson, D. L., Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1970). Manual for the Min- nesota Satisfactoriness Scales. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation (No. XVII), 1–51. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Industrial Relations Center. Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill. Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The Big Five person- ality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span: Personnel. Psychology, 52, 621–652. Lawson, L. (1991). The measurement of f lexibility, activeness, and reactiveness using an iterative scale construction method. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Lofquist, L. H., & Dawis, R. V. (1969). Adjustment to work. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts. Lofquist, L. H., & Dawis, R. V. (1978). Values as second-order needs in the theory of work adjustment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 12, 12–19. Lofquist, L. H., & Dawis, R. V. (1991). Essentials of person-environment-correspondence coun- seling. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Lubinski, D., & Dawis, R. V. (1992). Aptitudes, skills, and proficiencies. In M. D. Dun- nette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1–59). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. c01.qxd 8/5/04 8:56 AM Page 22