MSU LIBRARIES 4—13—— RETURNING MATERIALS: PIace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wiII be charged if book is returned after the date stamped beIow. TOWARD AN ECOLOGY OF YOUTH CAREER DEVELOPMENT: AN ANALYSIS OF CAREER DEVELOPMENT OF SOUTHERN, LON-INCOME, RURAL YOUTH By Chong-Hee Yoon Chin A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family and Child Ecology 1986 ABSTRACT TOWARD AN ECOLOGY OF YOUTH CAREER DEVELOPMENT: AN ANALYSIS OF CAREER DEVELOPMENT OF SOUTHERN, LOW-INCOME, RURAL YOUTH By Chong-Hee Yoon Chin The primary purpose of the study was to examine the selected predictors of family background, child characteris- tics, significant others’ influence, achievement motivation (i.e., educational and occupational aspirations and expecta- tions), and educational attainment on youth occupational attainment. The secondary purpose was to conceptualize youth career development from an ecological perspective. As a final analysis, an effort has been made to assess the relative importance of these environments on youth career development, particularly the long-term effect of the family on this important process. The population for the original study represented youth from six southern states (Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia). The present study was based on a secondary analysis of longitudinal data involving three phases of assessment: 1969, 1975, and 1979. The unit of analysis was 544 individuals who were followed up over ten years, beginning when they were in the fifth (sixth) grades, and continuing through four years after high school. The path modeling techniques utilized were based on status-attainment research. The effects were analyzed with sex and race controlled. While the findings indicated the total explanatory power of the proposed model (R2 = .38), a direct effect of the selected predictors on youth career development was observed only for achievement motivation and educational attainment. Indirect effects «rf the remaining variables were mediated through achievement motivation and educational attainment. These indirect effects were, howeverg worth noting because their magnitudes were comparable to the direct effects. For example, the indirect effect of either family background or child characteristics exceeded the direct effect of youth educational attainment. The indirect effect of the family was second only to the total effect of achievement motivation in predicting occupational attainment. In conclusion, the results of the path analysis explained the contributions (both direct and indirect effects) of a broad range of ecological factors to youth career development. It was found that the family makes significant contributions to the attainment of educational and occupational goals. By using a: path analysis, it was possible to fully appreciate the total influence or effects (direct and indirect) of the family on these important outcomes. To my Mother and my late Grandmother: For nurturing a love for learning in their daughters ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study is a product of many years’ struggle, and no small amount of hard work. Yet, my path was deeply enriched through the direction and support of my doctoral advisor, doctoral guidance committee members, family, and friends. I wish to express my appreciation to my committee members: Drs. Lawrence Schiamberg, Margaret Bubolz, Dennis Keefe, Robert Griffore, Ellen Strommen, and .Alice Whiren. Their guidance and unfailing encouragement were invaluable. I have appreciated the opportunity to study with all of these fine teachers at Michigan State University. Special gratitude is extended to Dr. Schiamberg, my committee chairperson, dissertation director, research supervisor, and mentor, for his enthusiastic support and direction throughout my program and dissertation process. His standard of excellence has been a continuous source of inspiration. I have and will continue to learn from his high standards. Thanks are also due for the financial assistance provided by many scholarship foundations: the American Association of University Women for awarding me the 1986 International Fellowship; Omicron Th1 Honor Society for a. 1985 research fellowship; the American Home Economics Association Foundation for the 1985 Ethel Parker International Fellowship; P.E.O. International Peace Scholarship Foundation; amd the Korean Honor Scholarship Foundation. In addition to a much-needed source of financial aid, the research assistantships provided by the Department of Family and Child Ecology and the College of Human Ecology at Michigan State University, as well as by the Michigan State University Agricultural Experimental Station and Professor Lawrence Schiamberg added both breath and depth to my educational experiences. Without such financial assistance, my academic goal as a foreign student would not have been a reality. The friendship, understanding, and technical assistance shared with fellow graduate students and friends has been deeply rewarding: Bill Abler (editing), Bruce Haas (computer consultation), Abdul Habib (statistical consultation), Mary Glass (word processing instruction), and Jacquelyn Thompson (editing). I am also indebted to Mr. Rasmussen at the Office of Immigration and Naturalization Services in Albany. Without his prompt issuance of a student visa, my educational goals would not have realized. Finally, the love and support of my family sustained me throughout my program. The strength and patience of my husband, Dr. Hyung Suk Chin, and son, Mun-Kyun, in enduring iv an extended period of the separation, served to continually renew my strength and resolve. Through their love for learning, my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Dae Kyun Yoon, established a foundation upon which I fashioned my own educational goals. And, my parents-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. Hee Sang Chin provided their part of support in this endeavor. Ultimately, I remain truly grateful to God. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ...................................... LIST OF FIGURES ..................................... Chapter I. INTRODUCTION Background of Problem ....................... Purpose of Study ............................ Research Question ........................... Conceptual Framework ........................ Bronfenbrenner’s Approach ................. Limitations and Basic Assumptions ........... II. LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Overview of Major Theoretical Perspectives on Occupational Choices ................... Super’s Theory ............................ Holland’s Theory .......................... Status-Attainment Theory .................. Economic Theory ........................... Decision-Making Theory .................... Dynamic View of Occupational Choices ........ Blau and Duncan Model ..................... Wisconsin Status Attainment Model ......... Replications and Extensions ............... Primary Variables in the Ecological Model... Proposed Ecological/Path Model & Hypotheses. An Application of the Ecosystem Theory to Career Development of Adolescents ........ The Family Ecosystem Theory ............... Hypotheses ................................ III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES Research Design and Subjects ................ Procedures for Data Collection .............. Conceptual and Operational Definitions of Variables ................................. Overview of Analysis ........................ vi Page viii ix 52 54 56 64 IV. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Statistical Assumptions for Path Analysis... Examination of Hypotheses ................... Hypothesis 1 .............................. Hypothesis 2 .............................. Hypothesis 3 .............................. Hypothesis 4 .............................. Hypothesis 5 .............................. Discussion of Findings: The Effects of Different Environments on Youth Occupational Achievement Process .......... The Effects of Achievement Motivation ..... The Effects of Family Background Factors.. The Effects of Child Characteristics ...... The Effects of Education .................. The Effects of Significant Others ......... The Effects of Macrosystem ................ V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Summary ..................................... Conclusions ................................. Implications ................................ BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................ APPENDICES A. VARIABLES BY CONCEPTUAL CATEGORY ............. STUDENT SURVEY FORM, BASELINE QUESTIONNAIRE.. MOTHER SURVEY FORM ........................... TEN-YEAR FOLLOW-UP SURVEY OF YOUNG PEOPLE.... FOLLOW-UP PROCEDURE .......................... mmonw TABLE 1; ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONAL MATRIX, MEANS, AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF VARIABLES .................................. TABLE 2: CORRELATIONAL MATRIX BETWEEN YOUTH ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATIONS AND EUDCATIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL ATTAINMENT .................... TABLE 3: INDIRECT EFFECTS OF SELECTED INDEPENDENT VARIABLES ON OCCUPATIONAL ATTAINMENT ................................. 105 107 109 120 128 130 140 145 154 156 157 158 Table 10. 11. 12. LIST OF TABLES Comparison Matrix of 5 Theories ................ List of Variables .............................. Summary Table Comparing the Path Variables for the Sample of Preadolescent, Adolescent, and Post-Adolescent Youth ........................ Summary Table Comparing the Path Variables for the Sample of Preadolescent, Adolescent, and Post-Adolescent Youth ........................ Summary Table Comparing Mean Differences, Correlational Coefficients of Occupational Aspirations and Expectations ................. Summary Table Comparing Mean Differences, Correlational Coefficients of Educational Aspirations and Expectations ................. The Effects of 1969 and 1975 Educational Expectations on 1979 Occupational Expectations (MCA) ........................... The Effects of 1969 and 1975 Educational Expectations on 1979 Educational Expectations (MCA) ........................... Regression Results of Youth Achievement Motivation on Educational and Occupational Attainment ................................... Direct Effects of the Path Variables ........... Indirect Effects of the Path Variables ......... Summary Table for Overall Effects of the Path Variables .................................... viii Page 24 42 73 74 77 8O 84 86 87 89 9O 92 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Blau-Duncan Path Model ......................... 27 2. Schematic View of the "Wisconsin Model" ........ 31 3. Status Attainment Model by Sewell, Haller, and Ohlendorf .................................... 31 4. Path analysis of factors affecting job status.. 36 5. Conceptual Model of the Family Ecosystem ....... 44 6. An Ecological Model of Career Development of Youth ........................................ 48 7. The Basic Path Model of the Study .............. 68 8. Developmental Trend for Occupational Aspirations and Expectations ................. 78 9. Developmental Trend for Educational Aspirations and Expectations ................. 81 10. Final Path Model ............................... 94 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background of Problem The area of career development of youth has received wide-ranging attention from researchers.1 There appear to be at least two important practical reasons for interest in studying the occupational choice process. First, occupation is the means of livelihood for the vast majority of the population. Secondly, many people’s sense of self-respect and/or life-satisfaction depends in large measure on the type of work they do. In a highly technological society such as the United States, where specialization is the rule and not the exception, the selection of an occupation has become one of the most important decisions individuals ever make in their lives. Indeed, it is an important dimension of future plans of adolescents, since it determines how they will spend most of their time, effort, and energy in later years, affecting their overall life satisfaction. .As Hall (1979) notes, the choice of an occupation by the individual is the difference between satisfaction and frustration experienced in later years. 1In 1970, Kuvlesky and Reynolds cited 818 papers in their references related to occupational aspirations and expectations (Turner, 1983). 2 Despite the importance of career choice and its impact (HI an individual’s life, the scientific literature about the career choice process of youth indicates that not all young people are directed into the most productive and rewarding jobs. Although equal opportunity is an American ideal, there is a growing realization that opportunities or "life chances" are not equal for all Americans. Various subgroups face the problem of occupational choice from a disadvantageous point of having “inherent" limitations placed on them from the very beginning of the choice process. Specifically, factors over which the individual has no control -- such as race, sex, initial lower socioeconomic status, and rural-urban residence -- compound the problem of satisfactory career choice. For rural youth, as an example, occupational choices are limited as a consequence of geographical area. Many experience a lack of employment opportunities as the diversity of industry and occupations found in the urban areas is severely limited in isolated rural towns. They may also be at a disadvantage regarding quality of education, and may have lowered expectations as a: result of parental influence. The expectations parents have for the upward mobility of their children may be limited. Their problems in making occupational choices are compounded with low- income levels and depressed economic conditions in general. 3 Like rural youth, for minority youth and low-income youth, occupational attainment may not provide the basis for any type of fulfillment. Although they may initially indicate preferred status occupations, the final result for these youths is not in systematically attaining a job, but in haphazardly "ending up" in doing something. What the outcome of this process means for society as a whole is uncertain. What is known is that talent is certainly wasted, and the social and economic systems are frequently perceived as unfair, generating anomie and futility. If equality of opportunity is to be made a reality, then, affirmative action programs must be directed toward these disadvantaged groups. Furthermore, the impact of such programs must be felt before career patterns and personal characteristics are "set." Although numerous studies have identified several important factors that are related to the successful career outcome of the general population of youth, heretofore, the focus of these studies has been youth aspirations and motivations regarding educational and occupational attainment, and the general physical, behavioral and familial environment of the individual focused on late adolescent years. While considerable research has been done in the area of status aspirations and attainments for the high school years and beyond, little has been done to study 4 the formation and dynamics of career development beginning with the earlier years. Likewise, the purpose of investigations on the occupational aspirations and attainments of low-income rural youth has been to delineate factors that affect the occupational choice process. .As an example, sex and race are found to be important structural variables that influence occupational choice (Cosby and Picou, 1973; McCleandon, 1976; Spitz and Waite, 1980). Social- psychological variables such as parental influence, self- esteem and academic conditions also affect aspirations (Williams, 1972; Brook, Whiteman, Lukeoff and Gordon, 1979; Kandel and Lesser, 1969; Osborn, 1971). The primary goal of these studies has been to analyze the factors that low- income youth experience, both in terms of social— psychological and structural variables, that influence satisfactory occupational attainment. In addition, such research provides some insight into the obstacles to goal attainment which are faced by this group. Seldom have social scientists, educators and policy makers examined the career development process of youth in its entirety. That is, there has not been a significant effort to utilize longitudinal designs, with a focus on youth as a functioning microunit of the society making adaptations necessary to function in a complex social milieu. Seldom has the focus of such research been on the 5 long range process of career development, beginning with the early years in the family setting, with careful attention to parental influence and socialization and to the reciprocal relationship of youth characteristics and environmental contexts. Such an interactive viewpoint may be considered an ecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Purpose of the Study In view of what has been discussed so far, the present study is designed to examine the factors contributing to and/or inhibiting low-income youth career development, with specific attention to the dynamics of the career development process. In this study, individual youth career development is viewed as an interaction/transaction between the individual and his/her environment, beginning with the family setting in early years. The issue was treated from such an ecological perspective, covering a period of ten years in the low-income youth’s life: from fifth (or sixth) grade through the junior (or senior) year in high school and four years later.1 1The present investigator is involved in the coding process of the interview data collected in the third phase (5-171) of the original investigation -- the Regional Projects 5-63, 8—126, and S-171, titled as "Influence on Occupational Goals of Young People in the Three Southern Subcultures," supported by the United States Department of Agricultural Cooperative State Research Service in six southern states (see pp. 52-53). The idea of an ecological study is conceived under the supervision of Dr. Lawrence Schiamberg of Michigan State University who is one of the seven principal coinvestigators of the original study. The 6 This kind of ecological study and longitudinal data allow the researcher to see lunv early relationships are established between the context of development and occupational outcomes, and how and when changes are possible. From a practical standpoint, the findings of this research can be used by families, schools and educational agencies to identify and clarify appropriate intervention strategies for parents, teachers, and/or policy makers in order to maximize career prospects of youth. Research Question The overall research question is as follows: "How do selected ecological factors predict occupational choice (attainment) of rural, low-income youth over time?" The primary goal is to describe and analyze the impact of these factors and especially how they are related to successful career outcomes. For intervention purposes, it is of crucial importance to identify those factors that contribute positiveky to successful career attainment among the low- income group and the trend for successful career development among these groupings. To put it simply, it will enable us to understand how or when to intervene in order to make a difference in occupational status for an individual. A reasons for an ecological study and some limitations imposed by the original data are further discussed under the limitations and basic assumptions section. 7 secondary purpose is to formulate a model for adolescent career development, using an ecological approach. More specifically, the present study attempts to deal with the following questions: 1. To what extent are the selected predictors (e.g., family background factors, child characteristics, significant others’ influences, youth achievement motivation], and educational attainment) related to successful career outcomes of low-income youth? 2. How do these selected predictors relate to career projections at an earlier stage? 3. Are there identifiable trends among selected predictors over time from the preadolescent period through high school to the post-high school period? 4. How do the results of the study differ from similar investigations of the general population of youth? 5. What are the factors that might be manipulated for intervention purposes to maximize career prospects of youth? 1In this study, youth achievement motivation refers to educational and occupational aspirations and expectations. For a detailed description of the term as used in this study, refer to "Conceptual and Operational Definitions of Variables" section in pp. 56-63. For a detailed discussion of the psychological definition of achievement motivation, see Dweck and Elliot (1983). Typically in psychology, aChievement motivation deals with motivational factors other than ability that affect learning and performance. 8 Conceptual Framework An ecological perspective is taken by the present investigator in approaching the issue of career development of rural, low-income youth. Two major theoretical frameworks on human development are chosen as the basis for the conceptual framework (If this study: Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) theory of "Human Development" and the "Family Ecosystem Framework" of Bubolz, Eicher, and Sontag (1979). The former is chosen as an overarching framework to justify the present investigation as au1 ecologically valid study while the latter is chosen to conceptualize the spatial and temporal dimensions of ecological contexts of youth career devel0pment. This section describes Bronfenbrenner’s theory and its application to the present research. The application of the Ecosystem model (Bubolz et al., 1979) to the study (H’ career development is further elaborated and presented in the last section of Chapter Two, in conjunction with the ecological/path model of the present investigation. Bronfenbrenner’s Approach Bronfenbrenner (1979) defines the ecology of human development as "the scientific study of the progressive mutual accommodation between an active, growing human being and the changing properties of the immediate settings in which the developing person lives, as this process is affected by relations between these settings and by 'the larger context in which the settings are embedded" (p.21). 9 He contends that an ecological approach to the study of any living thing has three major components: the organism, the environment, and the interactions between these two components. Bronfenbrenner further specifies the organism as the individual, and defines the layers of the environment which surround the individual as the Inicro-, meso-, exo-, and macro-systems. These environments have biological, psychological, sociological, physical, and economic characteristics which influence the development of the individual. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) microsystem is "a pattern of activities, roles, and interpersonal relations experienced by the developing person in a given setting with particular physical and material characteristics" (p.22). His mesosystem comprises "the interrelations among two or more settings in which the person actively participates" (p.25). An exosystem refers to "one or more settings that do not involve the developing person as an active participant," but what happens in the setting affects the person (p.25). The macrosystem refers to "consistencies, in the form and content of lower-order systems (micro-, meso-, and exo-) that exist, or could exist, at the level of the subculture or the culture as a whole, along with any belief systems or ideology underlying such consistencies" (p.26). This study is designed to examine the effects of these layers of the environment of southern, low-income, 10 rural youth on their occupational achievement. More specifically, the present investigation is designed to assess the influence of the person (e.g., child characteristics such as mental ability, self-concept, and academic and achievement motivations), the microsystem environment (e.g., parenting values and practices, significant other’s influences such as peers, teachers, neighbors, relatives, and adult friends), the mesosystem environment (e.g., the effect of schooling and other community interactions), the exosystem environment (e.g., family background factors such as parents’ education and occupation, and mother’s "social participation"), and the macrosystem of societal limitations/beliefs imposed on occupational achievement of these groups. of ,youth.1 ‘By confining the subject of the present investigation to low- income, rural youth, it becomes possible for other researchers to compare the findings of the present study with other groups of youth, allowing the society to see the macrosystemic differences that may exist among different social classes. The above assumptions and conceptualization are valid according to Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) theory. He states that ...within a given social group, the structure and substance of micro-, meso-, and exosystems tend to be similar, as if they were constructed from the same master model, and 1Details (Hi the variables selected for the study are described in Chapter three, pp. 56 - 63. 11 the systems function in similar ways. Conversely, between different social groups, the constituent systems may vary markedly. Hence by analyzing and comparing the micro-, meso-, and exosystems characterizing different social classes and groups it becomes possible to describe systematically and to distinguish ecological properties of these larger social contexts as environments for human development (p. 29). Finally, the goal of an ecological study is to describe, understand, and predict the nature of interaction between the organisni and its environment (Jochim, 1980). From this ecological perspective, the present study is appropriately categorized as an ecological study because the results of the investigation will help clarify the process of youth career development, with particular emphasis on the interface between low-income youth and their significant contexts of development. Limitations and Basic Assumptions As a secondary analysis, this study has two limitations 'hi exploring the research questions raised in the present investigation. One such limitation results from using the existing data set; the other results from possible bias of the present investigator in selecting variables from the original data. The first limitation comes from the instrument and the sample of the original data set. Particularly, the data have been collected from a sample of rural, low-income youth 12 in six southern states, using an non-probability sampling plan.1 Thus, the findings of the present study can only be generalized to those groups of the youth in the settings and age groups that have been represented by the original investigation. In other words, comparisons with other youth in different socioeconomic status can only be suggested or implied, rather than firmly made, based on the findings of this study. The second limitation results from the possible bias of the present investigator in selecting research issues and variables, and in imposing relationships over time (through the use of a path model) among the variables selected (see Table 2 on page 42 for a complete list of the variables). The author views youth career development as a product of youth’s ability as well as environmental influences such as parenting practices, significant others’ influence, and other family background factors. These basic assumptions of the author may have played a role in excluding some variables which other researchers may find important. In this study, career developmental process is not treated simply as an individual adaptation process involving self-concept or personality over the life-span, a contention made earlier by some psychologists (Super, 1957; Holland, 1966). Rather, the process of youth career 1This will be further described in detail in Chapter three. 13 development is treated here from an ecological perspective as encompassing an individual’s development from childhood through adolescence and young adulthood, as well as the result of the reciprocal interaction with a limited environment in shaping the career outcomes of rural, low- income youth. An attempt has been made to balance these shortcomings. The shortcomings resulting from the second limitation (i.e., the possible bias of the present investigator in the selection of the variables) have been balanced by means of thorough literature review, while the shortcomings resulting from the original dataset are balanced through the use of the existing longitudinal design (Hi the study, relatively large sample (N=544), and relatively sophisticated statistical methods (e.g., the path analysis, multiple classification analysis, and trend analysis). In addition, the findings of the study on rural, low-income youth are compared with other studies which used different groups of samples (e.g., middle-class, or males). Another limitation (not resulting either from the data or from the researcher) is imposed by the ambiguities of such concepts as occupation, career, status, occupational attainment, status attainment, career development, and occupational choice. .As will be discussed briefly in the review (Hi the existing theories, fundamental concepts such as occupation, choice, and career development are not 14 defined adequately among scholars in the field, and hypotheses regarding those concepts are not explicit enough for such an effort to be useful. Because of the lack of clearly defined scientific, agreeable terms, this study employs these concepts interchangeably without distinction, although an attempt has been made to define occupational attainment as used in the study at a later section. As indicated, the idea of an ecological study of career development of youth is developed based on an existing data set, which did not specifically purport to have originally measured ecological factors. However, the present investigator saw the opportunity to do an ecological study in that data set because of its longitudinal design, multiple variables representing different levels of environmental systems of the youth, and adult-child data that included family process variables over time. Given these circumstances, the present investigator provides a way of adopting existing data sets in relation to an ecological perspective. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The scientific literature about occupational choice is indeed massive: existing literature is spread across a variety of academic disciplines (e.g., psychology. sociology, and economics) and theoretical perspectives. Some researchers in the area have attempted to elaborate trait-factor theories (Bell, 1940), developmental frameworks (Ginzberg, Ginsburg, Axelrad and Herma, 1951; Super, 1953, 1957), structural models (Blau and Duncan, 1967), personality models (Holland, 1966, 1973), and socio- psychological models (Sewell, Haller, and Portes, 1969; Sewell and Hauser, 1972). Others have focused on race, sex, and residence variables (Alexander and Eckland, 1974; Hall, 1979; Portes and Wilson, 1976; Trieman and Terrell, 1979); and still others have made various comparisons of rural and urban populations (Cosby and Charner, 1978; Kenkel, 1981). This section begins with a broad overview of five major theoretical perspectives on occupational choices. Based on this overview, empirical modeling efforts will be selected and reviewed in the second section. Specifically, those studies will be reviewed which have a dynamic view of career development as an ongoing process that explicitly incorporates changes over time. This is done in an attempt 15 16 to develop the conceptual framework and an ecological model to be tested empirically in the present study. In the final section of the review, the major variables to be used in the ecological model are presented, together with an ecological model of career development of youth. It should be noted ‘that throughout 'these discussions, the terms career development, status (occupational) attainment, and occupational choice (process) are used interchangeably.1 These terms as used in this study are defined in Chapter Three under the heading "Conceptual and Operational Definitions of the Variables." Overview of Major Theoretical Pegspectives on Occupational ChOices The theoretical perspectives to be reviewed here are (a) Super’s developmental perspective (Super, 1953, 1957), (b) Holland’s typology of occupational choice (Holland, 1966, 1973), (c) Status-Attainment research in the field of sociology (Blau and Duncan, 1967), (d) Economic theories of occupational choices, notably Human Capital Theory (Thurow, 1970) and Utility theory (Ferguson and Gould, 1975), and (e) 1In this area of research, fundamental concepts such as occupation, status, career, attainment, expectation, aspiration, development are not precisely differentiated. Also, the operationalization of 'these terms varies among researchers. 2This portion of discussion is mainly a summarized version of "Theories of Occupational Choice: A Critical Assessment of Selected Viewpoints," by Hotchkiss, Black, Campbell and Garcia Jr. (1979). For an extensive discussion of these theories, refer to the above study. 17 a model of decision-making theory drawn from psychology (Vroom,l964). Super’s Theorv In vocational psychology, the concept of occupational choice connotes a static orientation associated with trait- factor theory.l Beginning with Ginzberg (1951)2 and Super (1953, 1957), the concept of career development was introduced into vocational psychology and the emphasis in this literature shifted from a static conception of matching people with jobs (Bell, 1940) to the study of an ongoing process. Three important ideas stand out in Super’s (1953) theory. First is the notion that occupational and related choices occur gradually in a complicated process that occurs over an extended time (i.e., life-span process). Second is the notion that self-concept plays an important role in occupational choice. According to Super (1953, 1957), occupational choice is the process of "implementing” one’s 1Until about mid century, a fairly simple philosophy dominated vocational psychology. The fundamental idea in the wise choice of a vocation are three factors: a clear understanding of yourself, a knowledge of the requirements and conditions in different lines of work, and true reasoning on relations of these two groups of facts (Parsons, 1967). 2Ginzberg’s theory focuses on the total developmental process through three stages (H’ occupational development, from early adolescent to the early adult years: a fantasy stage, a tentative stage and a realistic stage. The underlying notion is that as the individual progresses through the three stages of occupational development, the final stage is reached by the process of compromise, in which reality factors are weighed against available alternatives (Ginzberg, 1951). 18 self-concept. Third, Super emphasizes the concept of vocational maturity. In broad terms, vocational maturity includes vocational satisfaction and success (Hotchkiss et al., 1979). Super’s work provides a valuable perspective from which to view occupational choice. Holland’s Theorx Holland’s theory centers around a six-category typology. The distinctive feature of the typology is that the same categories are used to classify personality and occupations, thus generating a natural hypothesis that people match their personality type in) the occupational type. Numerous variations on this theme are proposed by Holland (1964). A large quantity of empirical work is associated with Holland’s theory. The bulk of this work, as Hotchkiss et al. (1979) note, does not show very convincing support of the theory because it: is based (HI specialized samples and relies on inappropriate analysis methods. Status-Attainment Theory Status-attainment research originated with the study of social mobility in sociology. Typical mobility research depends on broad classifications of occupation into status levels. Cross status-attainment research depends (H1 two innovations, according to Hotchkiss and his associates (1979). First, detailed procedures have been developed to assign a number measuring occupational status to each 19 occupation. Occupational status scales have facilitated the second important innovation -- use of path analysis.1 Current status-attainment research applies path analysis to uncover the reasons why the status of father’s and son’s occupation are related (e.g., Blau and Duncan, 1967). Findings suggest that parental attitudes and perceptions of peers comprise an important part of the explanation. Parents at different occupational levels hold different expectations for their children. Parental expectations tend to be adopted by children, and children’s expectations affect the occupation they eventually choose. Educational achievement is a critical step in this process: much of the relationship between parental occupational status and the occupational status of their children is due to the educational level achieved by the children (Blau and Duncan, 1967; Sewell et al., 1969; Bachman, O’Mally and Johnston, 1978). A large quantity of research tends to support these conclusions. Much of the research is based on national samples or comparably good quality state and local samples. Analysis generally' does incorporate relatively sophisticated multivariate methods. On the other hand, the theoretical and conceptual aspects of status-attainment work are too simplified to lPath analysis is in statistical methodology (based on regression analysis) designed to study cause-and-effect relations in the absence of experiments (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner and Bent, 1975). 20 render a realistic picture of the process of selecting an occupation (Hotchkiss et al., 1979; Schulenberg, Vondracek, and Crouter, 1984). First, the gradual process of narrowing down one’s occupational options described by Super and other vocational psychologists is not accommodated by status- attainment work. Secondly, most of the mathematical statements of status-attainment theory do not accommodate the probable reality that several of the variables exercise two-directional effects (e.g., parents affect children and children, in turn, affect parents). Finally, the mathematical statements of status attainment theory are static -- they do not account for changes over time. Economic Theory Two theoretical orientations shape most economic theories of individual occupational choices: human-capital theory (Thurow, 1970) and utility theory (Ferguson and Gould, 1975). In human-capital theory people are assumed to choose occupations in order to maximize net income, properly discounted to a "present value." Net income excludes money spent on education, training and other forms of personal improvement that tends to increase one’s income (Hotchkiss et al., 1979). Such forms of personal improvement that increase income are termed human capital. Income is linked to human capital through jobs. Certain human-capital accumulation is necessary to perform certain jobs, and one 21 gets paid for performance on the job (Thurow, 1970; Becker, 1964; Bowlby and Schriver, 1973). Utility theory includes both income and nonpecuniary factors as bases for job selections (Ferguson and Gould, 1975). According to this theory, people balance all features of jobs, including income, against constraints that prevent one from achieving all that is desired. The final choice is :1 compromise that maximizes overall satisfaction or "utility" subject to constraints. These ideas are expressed in mathematical terms.l According to Hotchkiss and his associates (1979), little empirical work has been carried out in a direct effort to test an economic theory of individuals’ occupational choices. One of the reasons is that the key concepts are difficult to operationalize, since economists do not generally consider utility to be measurable. Economic theory contributes two important hypotheses that are neglected in other writings about occupational lMaximize u=f(x, y) (Utility function) Subject to I-PXX + PyY (Income constraints) x and y g 0 (Non negative quantity of goods) where Isincome, Px and Py=the price of good 1 and 2. (Source: Hotchkiss et al., 1979) 22 choices (Hotchkiss et al., 1979). First, the importance of income as a motivating factor is emphasized; however, influence of nonpecuniary motives is also recognized explicitly. Secondly, the hypothesis that people tend to maximize satisfaction subject in) constraints is developed nowhere else to the extent it is in economics. In addition, economics contributes important concepts such (as "present value" that are not well understood by noneconomists. Decision-Making Theorl Application of decision-making theory to occupational choice is probably the least thoroughly studied perspective of occupational choice. The key concept in this theory is "valence" (Hershenson and Roth, 1966; Hilton, 1962; Kaldor and Zytowski, 1969; Mitchell and Beech, 1975; Vroom, 1964). Valence of an object such as an occupation is defined as the satisfaction it will yield. Thus, the terms valence and utility are nearly synonymous. Valence of a given choice is hypothesized to be a mathematical function of the valence of outcomes which the given choice is likely to help achieve. Valence of different choices, such as different occupations, are compared by a mathematical function. The method of comparison includes not only the valence of each occupation, but also the individual’s judgement about the chance of getting into each occupation. The final selection of the occupation depends both on valence and on perceived chance of gaining entry (Hotchkiss et al., 1979). This model could 23 apply to all kinds of choices besides occupation, but it says nothing about factors that generate interest in different occupations. Little evidence supporting this theory for occupational choice is available. At the present time, decision-making theory supplies a source of potentially' useful, technical tools and ideas about processes of choice, although these ideas have not been verified. Further, environmental variables affecting occupational choices are seldom considered in decision- making theory. Krumboltz’s social learning theory of career selection (Krumboltz, Mitchell, and Jones, 1976; Mitchell, Jones, and Krumboltz, 1975) and other general information processing theories on career selection all fall under this category. In summary, this brief description of five theoretical perspectives suggests that achievement of a detailed theory describing the process of occupational choice is not close at hand. Available research, nevertheless, offers useful insight into ‘what aspects of vocational development have been studied thoroughly and thus incorporated in the theory, and what aspects have been overlooked. This has been summarized in Table 1. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses will be a step to a future improvement of theories in this area. Table l. 24 Comparison Matrix of Five Theories Theoretical Perspectives D e [a e r1 d e r1 t Variable(s) I n d e p elicle n t Variable(s) Super Vocational Self-concept, adjustment personality trait, and "vocational maturity" Holland Occupational choice Personality type is categorized into one defined by of Holland’s six Holland’s typology environmental types Status Occupational choice Parental status, Attainment scaled to. reflect IQ, academic Theory prestige performance, significant other attitude, education Economics Labor market Income and "non- Theory income" utilities, "prices" or wages of alternative jobs Decision Occupational choice Theory would be viewed as a special case of choice in general (Modified from Hotchkiss et al., 1979, p.240) 25 Among theories that view career development as an ongoing process (such as Super’s theory, Holland’s theory, and Status-Attainment theory), status-attainment theory has been selected for further review because it contains a massive amount of empirical work and combines the traditional sociological viewpoint —- that factors such as social class influence occupational choice -- with a social psychological view -- that interpersonal relationships strongly influence occupational decision. Additionally, the theory is relatively easy to operationalize and is expressed in the precise language of path analysis. This discussion will eventually lead to the selection of primary variables of the present investigation and to the formulation of an ecological model of career development of low-income youth. The Dynamic View of Occupational Choices Bla n Dun an Mod l In contrast to the Ginzberg et al. (1951) and Super (1953) models which emphasized social-psychological factors as major components, Blau and Duncan’s (1967) model went to the other extreme, focusing on structural variables to the exclusion of social-psychological factors. Their empirical efforts using path analysis have resulted in major progress in the identification of variables influencing the choice process and model building based on prediction. 26 Following the basic assumptions of path analysis,1 the causal ordering2 of the variables in Blau and Duncan’s model began with the father’s education and occupation first, followed by the respondent’s education and finally the respondent’s first job, which is the dependent variable in their model. Later, the respondent’s current job status is added to the existing model. These relationships and the results of their study are illustrated in Figure 1. A national sample survey entitled "Occupational Changes in a Generation" formed the basis for the findings in Blau and Duncan’s research. Blau and Duncan used a national sample (H’ 25,000 men (20,700 respondents), representative of 45 million men, 20 to 64 years old, in the civilian, noninstitutional population of the United States, in March of 1962. Their primary purpose was to present a systematic analysis of the American occupational structure, examining social stratification and mobility. 1Basically path analysis is a method of breaking down and interpreting linear relationships among sets of variables (Nie et al., 1975). Two main assumptions must be met to use the technique: (a) a causal ordering among the variables is known; and (b) the relationships among the variables are causally closed (i.e., any variation in one variable is due solely to variation in the other variable and not the result of some outside influence). 2The regression coefficient cannot be interpreted as an effect coefficient. That is, it does not measure the expected changes in the dependent variable when independent variable is actually changed by one unit. It merely measures the expected difference between two groups that happen to be different)on the independent variable by one unit (Nie et a ., 1975 . 27 U1 U3 1 .859 1.753 .310 .394 FE occz .516 F0 .224 Source: Blau and Duncan (1967:170) Note: The symbols are defined as follows: FE = Father’s education FO = Father’s occupational status ED = Respondent’s education OCC] . Status of respondent’s first job OCC a Status of respondent’s 1962 job U1, 2U2, and U3 = Residual variables FigUre 1. Blau-Duncan Path Model of Occupational Status-attainment for U.S. Men Aged 20-64 28 The main variables included in the path analysis refer either to respondents’ education or occupational status or to the educational or occupational status of the respondents’ fathers. All of the occupational information is converted in) Duncan SEI scores. Father’s occupational status refers to fathers’ occupation when the respondent was sixteen years old. Two occupational-status variables were collected for respondents, one referring to first job and one to the current job at the time of the survey. Education for fathers and sons is converted to numerical codes based on (but not equal to) the number' of completed ,years of schooling. In addition, information was collected regarding income, family size, marital status, migration history, race, and national origin. The structural variables they used accounted for 40 percent. of the 'variance irI occupational attainment. The importance of their model remains in their effort at establishing causal relationships between the independent variables and the dependent variable, which added more information in understanding the occupational choice process than previous studies had contributed. (For example, they found that the relationship between 1962 occupational status and the first job the respondent has was significant (path coefficient = .281). See Figure 1.) 29 Wisconsin Status Attainment Model Research efforts that have employed path analysis began by strengthening the Blau and Duncan model. The omission of social—psychological factors was criticized and stronger theoretical underpinning were suggested in order to explain the relationships between variables. Sewell, Haller and Portes (1969) argued that the inclusion of social-psychological factors was important, on the basis of prior research found in the literature (e.g., Super’s (1957) work on self-concept), and the logical relation between structural connections and social- psychological development. According to them, the individual’s psychological makeup is developed in structured situations: an individual’s actions are the results of cognitive and motivational orientations developed in fixed (structural) settings, as well as reactions to the present situation. Their work is known as "the Wisconsin Status Attainment Model." Besides focusing on occupational attainment, the Wisconsin model was also concerned with educational attainment. It was assumed that both social-psychological and structural factors influenced not only sets of significant others effect on youth, but the individual’s own assessment of ability as well. It is further assumed that the influence of significant others and the estimates that the individual has of his ability subsequently affect 30 educational and occupational aspirations. In addition, levels of aspiration influence levels of educational attainment, which in turn affect levels of occupational attainment. These relationships are illustrated in Figures 2 and 3. Using 929 male subjects whose fathers were farmers, Sewell and his associates collected data from 1957 to 1964, and found that social-psychological variables did not increase the overall variability in occupational attainment (R2 = .34). For: educational attainment, however, fifty percent of the variance was accounted for by the following independent variables: level of occupational aspiration, level of educational aspiration, significant others’ influence, academic performance, socio-economic status, and mental ability (1.0.). In discussing these results, Sewell et al. (1969) argued that the introduction of socio-psychological factors added a great deal to the explanation of educational attainment. Hall (1979) pointed out that Blau and Duncan (1967) attempted in) explain occupational attainment as it was mediated through educational attainment, while Sewell and his associates (1969) attempted to explain educational attainment; and subsequently' occupational attainment as it: was related to education. 31 Family 4 Social ‘ Ed. Occ. Psychological Attain- ’iAttain- Process ment ment Cognition Figure 2. Schematic View of the "Wisconsin Model" .246 x1 .179 .288 .320 .589 X2 e3 e5 X1: Parental status X6: Youth’s occ. X2: Measured mental ability expectation X3: Grade average X7: Educational X4: Composite significant Attainment other educational X8: Occupational expectation of youth Attainment X5: Youth’s educational ej: Residual expectation Figure 3. variables Status Attainment Model Presented by Sewell, Haller, and Ohlendorf (1970) 32 Another point of divergence between the two models is the difference 'hi the variables and samples used. As a result, comparing the contribution of one study to another is difficult. Sewell et al. (1969) suggested that given a larger sample with greater age variation, their model would prove to be more powerful. The addition of the significant others’ influence variable implies intervention strategies in terms of changing levels of attainment. The criticism of the Wisconsin model by Hall (1979) is as follows: (a) The Wisconsin model limits theoretical explanation to relationships between variables and not to the area of occupational choice. Causally linking variables may eventually lead to theory; however, overall explanation of the occupational choice process is limited. (b) Over emphasis on social-psychological factors may mislead others to focus on attitudinal manipulations without attention to structural limitations (e.g., race, sex, fluctuations in the job market). In terms of explained variability, Sewell and his associates explain little more variability with the addition of social-psychological variables than Blau and Duncan (1967) explained with structural variables. (c) The model was developed, tested, and applied almost exclusively to white males (seniors in high school with farmer fathers). Consequently, it lacks generalizability. 33 The empirical efforts of these status-attainment researchers can be summarized as follows. Status-attainment theory grew out of sociological work on occupational mobility. Mobility research typically analyzes frequency tables in which father’s occupation is the independent variable and son’s occupation is the dependent variable, occupations being grouped into a small number of ordered status categories. Blau and Duncan (1967) propose to study the process by which such relationships arise and developed the method of path analysis as a vehicle for exploring such mechanisms. The fundamental prediction of the theoretical perspective is that the relationship between filial occupational status and parental statuses such as father’s occupational status can be interpreted by including intervening variables. Education of the son is the chief intervening variable introduced by Blau and Duncan, and one’s education does, indeed, account for a substantial portion cH’ the total effect of parental status on filial occupational status. The Wisconsin model adds more detailed substance to the basic Blau—Duncan idea by including significant others, youth’s educational and occupational expectations, and school grades as intervening variables, and by adding a measure of mental ability. One of the main conclusions stemming from work with the Wisconsin model is that significant others are a critical link between family 34 background and career achievement. There have been numerous successful replications and extensions of status-attainment research. Two of these are reviewed next. Replications and Extensions: Youth in Transition Studv With the advancement of more sophisticated research methodology, Bachman, O’Mally, and Johnston (1978) were able to identify major predictive variables with path coefficient values of each, which explain 50.6 percent of variance in educational attainment. The subjects of their study were 2,213 adolescent males chosen in 1966 to be representative of young men entering tenth grade in public high schools in the United States. Their findings are based on the five waves of the data in the "Youth in Transition" project, an eight-year longitudinal study. One hundred ninety-nine variables were tested, of which family background factors, individual ability, and college plans and grade (ninth) explain 50.6 percent of educational attainment. Family background factors included father’s occupational status, father and mother’s educational level, number of rooms per person in the home, number of books in the home, checklist of other possessions in the home, and number of siblings. The individuals’ ability is measured by means of the respondents’ standardized scores on three tests of intelligence. The association of occupational attainment with other variables is somewhat less clearcut and more complicated to 35 explain than educational outcome, but Bachman and his associates were able to come up with the predictive power of educational attainment on job status, with a range of factors designated as "personal characteristics" which includes family background, ability, values, attitudes, and early (pre lTHfll school) education experiences. The basic findings from this analysis are summarized below in Figure 4. (Bachman and his associates cautioned that with error- free measures of all relevant personal characteristics, much stronger effects on job status are expected.) 2. Educational Attainment .644 .315 .239 1. Personal 4‘ 3. Job Characteristics ' Status Figure 4. Path Analysis of Factors Affecting Job Status 36 Most of the earlier research and theory dealing with youth career choices focused exclusively on males, and general populations of youth. Theories and research thus far reviewed reveal that little has been done to study the formation and dynamics of career development of minority youth, including females, low-income youth, or youth in rural areas. The Regional Projects S—63, S-126, and S-171, titled as "Influence on Occupational Goals of Young People in the Three Southern Subcultures," are specifically addressed to the concern of low-income, rural youth.1 Current Findings of the S-I7l Project The aim of the study (being conducted by researchers from North Carolina State University, the University of North Carolina, the University of Tennessee, the University of Kentucky, Alcorn State University (MS), Virginia Polytechnic Institute, and Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University and Michigan State University) is to identify life experiences of rural, low-income individuals that contribute to their educational and occupational attainment. When comparing career aspirations and expectations at various age levels to attainment, one finding has been that relatively few of the young men fulfilled their career expectations. In 1969, half of the 1The present investigation is the secondary analysis of the data collected by the Regional Project S-63, S-126, and S-171. 37 black fifth and sixth grade boys in the study-and half of them as high school upperclassmen-aspired to professional and technical careers. When interviewed ”H1 1979, only 7 percent of the young men were actually working at such jobs. Fewer white males aspired to and expected to attain such high-level jobs, but more actually attained these, as well as mid-level jobs below the professional level. The personal trait that seemed to be most closely related to career attainment was self-confidence. Of the girls, 70 percent of the whites and 75 percent of the blacks aspired to professional or technical careers when they were in grade school. The percentage dropped only slightly by the high school years. As young adults, however, only 10 percent of these women achieved their goals. The mother’s educational level seemed to be the best predictor of the women’s success in attaining the jobs to which they had aspired. The more education the mother had, the greater the agreement between grade school and high school career expectations and attainment. The family, not the child’s ability, seemed to be one of the primary influences on whether the young people achieved their career goals. Parental attitudes were the most significant factor in the young people’s satisfaction with life at the time they began taking on adult responsibilities. The family was also significant in whether the ,young people chose to remain in their home 38 communities. Among blacks, 65 percent wanted to move away. For both blacks and whites, those who wanted to remain were more likely to attain their: wishes. Most of those who wanted to leave did not. Since the Regional Project S-63, S-126, and 8-17] are the data source of the present investigation, they will be further discussed in more detail under the "Study Design and Subjects" section (p. 51). As pointed out previously, the earlier research and theory focused almost exclusively on males. During the past decade, a spate of empirical papers including comparisons of status attainment processes for females to those for males have been published.1 The general conclusion is that 1For example, Alexander and Eckland 1974; Chase 1975; Featherman and Hauser 1976; Glenn,Ross, and Tully 1974; Hout and Morgan 1975; McClendon 1976; Rehberg and Hotchkiss 1972; Suter and Miller 1973; Taylor and Glenn 1976; Trieman and Terrell 1975; Tyree and Treas 1974; Williams 1975, 1972. Three of these papers conclude that the process of educational and occupational attainment of women is similar to the process for men (Featherman and Hause 1976; Trieman and Terrell 1975; and McClendon 1976). In contrast, Alexander and Eckland (1974) report that educational attainment of men depends more on measured mental ability than does the educational attainment. of women; whereas, women’s educational attainment depends more on status background than does that of men -— in spite of the higher academic achievement of women. Few studies support Alexander and Eckland’s observation that status background is more closely related to attainment of women than of men, however. Featherman and Hause (1976), Chase (1975), and Glenn, Ross, and Tully (1974) report just the opposite, and McClendon (1976), and Trieman and Terrell (1974) observe small differences between the sexes. Of the few papers focusing on career planning of youth, most have concluded that the process for females is similar to that of males (Williams, 1975, 1972; and Rehberg and Hotchkiss 1972). Although sex differences have been observed, they generally have not been large and are not yet easy to interpret theoretically (Hotchkiss et al., 1975) 39 traditional career development theories do not describe females adequately. A specific issue is that the salient contextual variables for male career development may be different, or of different magnitude than those for female career development. Although dealing specifically with sex differences is beyond the scope of this study, nonetheless this study, unlike many others, includes females in the total sample. 40 Primary Variables in the Ecological Model The theories and models thus far reviewed point to the use of path modeling as one way to understand the complex contributions (rf numerous ecological variables to youth occupational outcomes. Given the ecological focus of this research (as discussed in Chapter One) and drawing on the major status-attainment investigations (as reviewed in Chapter Two), the specific variables analyzed in this study reflect several critical contexts of development (e.g., the family and the school) as these interface with individual characteristics (e.g., achievement motivationl, academic motivation, mental ability and self-concept). The specific variables which were selected to predict occupational attainment included the following: X1: family background X2: child’s characteristics X3: significant other’s influence - familial2 X4: significant other’s influence - extra-familial2 X5: achievement motivation -youth’s educational and occupational aspirations and expectations X5: educational attainment (post-adolescent period) 1Achievement motivation is defined in this study as youth educational and occupational aspirations and expectations. 2To calculate the magnitude of familial importance, significant others’ influence has been divided into two categories. 41 In the present investigation, race and sex were controlled throughout analysis in order to assess the effects of selected predictors on occupational attainment for general populations of low-income youth, after accounting for race and sex effects. Family background factors were measured by educational levels of parents, occupations of parents, and mother’s social participation. Significant others’ influences in the family were measured by parenting practices (child’s perception of parenting behaviors), mother’s achievement orientations, child-rearing value orientation, and mother’s status projections for her child. Child characteristics were measured by child’s mental ability (1.0.), self-concept and academic motivation. Influence of significant others outside the family was measured through reported influence of teachers, neighbors, friends, relatives, priests, and/or adult friends. Achievement motivation of the child was measured by the child’s status projections expressed as educational ahd occupational aspirations and expectations, assessed at three periods of time (e.g., in 1969 when the ,youth were fifth and sixth grades; in 1975 juniors and seniors in high school; and in 1979, four years after high school). Educational attainment was measured at the end of period three (four years after high school). Occupational attainment was assessed at the same period, and converted to NORC scores (see p.56). The variables under consideration appear in Table 2. Ta 42 ble 2. List of variables X1 X2: X3: X5: X7: Family background factor (FBK): A composite score of the breadwinner’s occupation the educational levels of both mother and father mother’s social "participation" scores Child’s characteristics: A composite of IQ (mental ability) SEL (self-concept) AC (academic motivation) Significant other’s influence (parents):A composite of l) ACV (mother’s achievement orientation) 2) CHA (character) Two factors of mother’s OUT (outgoing) child-rearing value orientation 3) MED (mother’s ed. status projections for her child) MOC (Mother’s occ. status projection for her child) 4) LV (loving) DM (demanding) ) Child’s perception of parenting PU (punishing) practices 5) PAR (parental influence on youth’s future plans) SIB (siblings’ influence on youth’s future plans) . Significant other’s influence 0U (extra-familiar people’s influence on youth’s future plans) Achievement motivation as in educational and occupational aspirations and expectations of the youth 1) Occ. aspirations in preadolescent years (1969) Occ. expectations in preadolescent years (1969) Ed. aspirations in preadolescent years (1969) Ed. expectations in preadolescent years (1969) 2) Occ. aspirations in adolescent years (1975) Occ. expectations in adolescent years (1975) Ed. aspirations in adolescent years (1975) Ed. expectations in adolescent years (1975) 3) Occ. aspirations in post-adolescent years (1979) Occ. expectations in post-adolescent years (1979) Ed. aspirations in post-adolescent years (1979) Ed. expectations in post-adolescent years (1979) One variable from each period is used in the analysis. That is, Ed. Exp. of 1969, Ed. Exp. of 1975, Occ. Exp. of 1979. See page 83 for the reasons for the selection. Educational attainment as of 1979 Occupational attainment as of 1979 43 Proposed Ecological/Path Model & Hypotheses An Application of the Ecosystem Theory to Career Development of Adolescents As indicated in Chapter One, the study of youth career development has traditionally focused on the aspirations, expectations and motivation for educational and occupational attainment, and the general physical, behavioral and familial environment of the individual (primarily late adolescent years). The purpose of the present investigation is to present an ecological model for analysis of the career development of low-income youth. From such a perspective, youth are considered as a microunit of society, family as an environment and source of resources for all its members including the youth, and career development of the youth as one of the functions of the family. Ecological Systems Model An ecological systems model is founded in ecology, the study of the interrelationships of organisms and environments. It is based on the concept of ecosystem, the interactional system of living things with the environment which surrounds them (Bubolz, Eicher, and Sontag, 1979). In the human ecosystem model, which is based on a general systems perspective, it: is critical to realize that human beings interact with the total environment as is illustrated in Figure 5. 44 Emumamoum 3.2;... we Enos $332.3 .m «.53: .395 xvavm L3 332 ..muvmopouu 5.. 68 m 350m 0:25 :5 :oacuim .nuauunum.»:.flo>_:: 3 .wsmmflv cmc_;2 Gem NFODam ma .muWuumca ecu 3:355 93 mo DEE 2:. E 323an m 2w 5.9522 .3203 56:1 .9 16:00 ES»: >=E£ on. 2:. 2:9... < dug 43722 .503um 2:5 05 :53". 3 .53. 69.25 oEouon 25:50.35 2: 2 «3230 955.30 xunnvuuu. (I whiz. 1. < .— m < O m 0 » 355E?! =30an _ <. .cuEumucmE > I 65:00 vca 385 < m ncozflvm 3:093 . M m W :2:— ucn :o_.~u_::EEoU m n 05an h a z .5330 ucn E2595: 2 n w w , ”Ewan-Ens. w m U 2 a coznfisncou I ._. 3 2 6020.691 20:02.6...— 2 o m 0 3:82.52 0 D ._. I .883 I :5 .cuEno_o>uo :25: I uremia .635 m m m h, 5.3225: £5.58 All 3 1 825m £5663 _ m M z 73““wa ”NE”: 38303”. > z m E I I I nv_u__on z O U m «Bun; I .:~E:I.:oz vcu :nEax I 032305. w 0 a. flux»... .n.coE_nv>c_ I Eu~n>n c0:~E.2nc9= I noa_n> J < nuutcvm I co:n:....o.£.x9uco c< III ”800 ( < 380 3:35: I 5.52: A 58: < M gonna Ill socucm n k ._. < < z z .coEco.._>:u 05 :_ 2:21» o:- .coE:o._>:u on. BlmBnSO /.:vE:9._>:o an. :_ "53»: v:« .cuficoctév 50:19an— 45 Interactions and transactions within the system are described by feedback processes between components of a system. A change in any part of the system affects the system as a whole as well as its subparts, creating the need for system-adaptation rather than the need to simply attend to a single part (Bubolz and Whiren, 1984). In the human ecosystem model, it; is assumed that humans are a part of the total life system and cannot be considered apart from all other living organisms in the environment. The environments for the family furnish the resources necessary for life and constitute the life support and social support systems (Andrew, Bubolz, and Paolucci, 1980). Family members transform energy, matter and information from their environment to meet their needs. The flow of energy and information into and through the system activates decision implementing processes (Bubolz and Whiren, 1984). Like the family system, as illustrated in Figure 5, the individual in the ecosystem is regarded as a cybernetic input-output system. Information enters or re-enters through feedback, and provides perceptual data for the individual to examine his/her career choice behavior in relation to the environment. Individual development can be either facilitated or hindered, depending on the level of feedback employed. Based on the general systems concepts of "wholeness," it can be conceived that a change in any 46 segment of the family system, or environment will result in change in other segments. In the application of this "Ecosystem Framework" to the study of career development of youth, the present investigator adapted the following concepts and assumptions used by Bubolz et al., (1979), Andrews et al., (1980), and Bubolz and Whiren (1984). (a) Humans are a part of the total life system and cannot be considered apart from all other living species in nature and the environment that surrounds them. An individual youth in the family system is considered as a subsystem and is an actor as well as reactor, capable of interacting with the environmental input. (b) The results of interactions are learned, experienced, and stored by the unit in its schema, and feedback -- either positively or negatively -- to the system. (c) For an individual in the family, the family is an environment for him/her. The level of input of energy, information, goods and services input to the family system and the individual is related to the level of output by the family system and the individual organism. (d) The boundaries of the family system vary in permeability, permitting energy and other exchanges with the environments, and with other systems in their environments to take place to varying degrees. 47 (e) Career development of youth is considered as one function of the family and as such it must be examined in its wholeness -- both spatial and temporal -- of interactions and interdependence. Based (HI these assumptions, an ecological model of the career development of youth is proposed in Figure 6. This model presents the proposed relationships among the selected variables over a ten-year period. Spatial dimensions of the ecological contexts of career development of youth are represented by different layers of youth’s environments. Temporal dimensions are represented by the time line covering the period from 1969 to 1979. The relationships illustrated in Figure 6 are assessed at three time periods: 1969, 1975 and 1979. Thus, it becomes possible to compare the effects of selected predictors at each time period, and to assess the developmental trends on a temporal dimension, both of which enables us to see how early the relationships are established and how changes are possible. This mode of analysis enables the researcher to differentiate those factors that influence career attainment of youth either independently or through status projections (i.e., educational and occupational expectations and aspirations). Based on the proposed relationships among the selected variables, the specific hypotheses to be investigated were developed according to the research 40 Temporal Dimension I \ T: I” F0 '5‘ a... ‘1” “PM 'I 4-): 1'". cum on CLE 'fi' 105 i,l .1. 1'" VI- I X5 X5 I I I I : _..L_... I E "6 I . X3 X4 E X7 . : —.—-. i i E 1969 1975 1979 Figure 6. An Ecological Model of Career Development of Youth 49 questions proposed at the beginning. Hypotheses I and 3 are related to the research question 2 (see p. 6-7). Hypotheses 2 is related to the question 3. Hypotheses 4 and 5 are related 1x: the research question 1. Research questions 4 and 5 will be addressed in the final chapter. Five hypotheses are stated in the following section. Hypotheses The first hypothesis is directed at examining the relative importance of the selected independent variables on youth achievement motivation in the preadolescent years (1969), adolescent years (1975), and post-adolescent years (1979). This hypothesis is parallel to the research question 2. As a step toward assessing the overall explanatory power of the path model, hypothesis 1 measures the effect of early socialization experience on occupational achievement via achievement motivation variable. It is stated as: Hypothesis 1: Among low-income, southern, rural youth, the level of relationship between three independent variables (i.e., family background factors, child’s characteristics, and significant others’ influences) and the intervening variable of achievement motivation (i.e., youth educational and occupational expectations and aspirations) in the preadolescent years lel be positively related to achievement motivation in the adolescent and post- adolescent years. The second hypothesis is intended to examine the developmental trend of youth achievement motivation (i.e., educational and occupational expectations and aspirations) 50 at three successive age levels. This hypothesis is related to the research question 3. Two sub-hypotheses were developed: Hypothesis 21: Among low-income, southern, rural youth, the levels of aspiration and expectation in three successive age levels will demonstrate a negative (downward) trend over time. Hypothesis 22: Among low-income, southern rural youth, the differences between aspiration and expectation levels will increase over time. The third hypothesis is to examine the effect of youth achievement motivation (i.e., educational and occupational expectations and aspirations) of preadolescent and adolescent periods on that of the post-adolescent period, and also the effect of the post-adolescent occupational expectations on the final educational and occupational attainment. Two sub-hypotheses were developed: Hypothesis 31: The level of achievement motivation in post-adolescence is positively related to the level of achievement motivation in the preadolescent and adolescent periods. Hypothesis 32: The level of achievement motivation in post-adolescence is positively related to the level of final educational and occupational attainment. Hypothesis 4 is designed to assess both the direct and indirect effects of the selected independent variables (i.e., family background factors, child’s characteristics, significant others’ influence) on occupational attainment. 51 Hypothesis 4: Among low-income, southern, youth, there is a positive relationship between the selected independent variables (i.e., background, child’s characteristics, and significant others’ influence) and occupational attainment either directly or indirectly through such intervening variables as achievement motivation or educational attainment. The last hypothesis proposed examined the overall explanatory power of the path model for youth occupational attainment, integrating all the variables selected for the present study. It is stated as Hypothesis 5: Among low-income, southern, youth, the levels of influence of the selected independent variables (i.e., family background factors, child’s characteristics, and significant others’ influences) and the intervening variables (i.e., achievement motivation and educational attainment) are positively related to the level occupational attainment. Implications for family ecosystems theory are made from the findings of the study in the last chapter. CHAPTER III METHOD AND PROCEDURE The primary foci of this investigation are to examine predictive factors and to formulate an ecological model of career development of youth over time. The original investigators used the status-attainment models for their study (H’ low-income rural youth from six southern states. The following section provides a description of research design, sample procedures and methods of data collection that the original investigators used, as well as a description of operational and conceptual definitions that the present investigator has used. The discussion is followed by an overview of the data analysis strategy. Research Design & Subjects This study is based on a secondary analysis of longitudinal data collected (and still is in the process of being collected) over a period of ten years. The original study--"Influence on Occupational Goals of Young People in the Three Southern Subcultures" -- was conducted under the title of the Regional Project S-63 (in 1969, phase 1), S-126 (in 1975, phase: 2), and S-l71 (in 1979, current phase). These were sponsored by the United States Department of Agricultural Cooperative State Research Service in six 52 53 southern states: Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. The population for the original study consists of low-income youth in three subcultures in the south. Samples were drawn purposively so that the county socioeconomic composition reflected areas characterized by unemployment, school dropout, and poverty. The sites of the twenty elementary schools comprising the initial sample were located in ten counties across six states. Areas were stratified to contain rural areas of 2,500 or less, and urban areas containing cities of 40,000 or more as designated by the United States Census in 1960. In selecting counties, these criteria were used to delineate between four and ten schools in order to yield around 200 mother-child "pairs" in each state. Efforts were made to determine that each school site was homogeneous with respect to these selection criteria. Although no sampling frame with randomization was used, the original investigators estimate that the population of families in the south with similar characteristics totaled around 200,000 (Proctor, 1974). In summary, the major purpose of the present study is to investigate the process of youth career development. The original model is one of status attainment of low-income rural youth from six southern states. The present study uses an ecological model. The study is longitudinal in 54 design involving three phases of assessment: 1969, 1975, and 1979. A regional research committee made up of members from six southeastern states carried out the original study. The unit of analysis is 544 individuals (out of the original 1412 mother-child pairs) who were followed up over time1 and from whom completed questionnaires were available for all three assessment periods.2 Procedures for Data Collection The initial questionnaire used in 1969 was pretested by the participating states between January' and July of 1968. The original version of the youth questionnaire was revised by the regional subcommittee of the project and the final instrument contained 116 items, in addition to information (Hi demographic characteristics. Interviewers were given a manual of instructions to read in preparation for the interviewing process and introducing themselves to the student subjects. Training sessions were then held with the interviewers to explain and clarify the purpose and administration procedures to be used 'hi the study. Prompters and instructions were included for each section of the instrument to guide the students in completing the 1For follow-up procedure of the original study, refer to Appendix E. 2Black males totaled 91, black females 97, white males 150, and white females 206. 55 questionnaire. Interviews in all seven states followed the same procedures. In 1969, the questionnaires were administered to all students in the classroom by a two-person team (project researchers). One team member read the instructions, while the other assisted the students by answering individual questions and acting as a monitor to ensure that procedures were followed correctly. After the initial administration, students not meeting the criteria of being representative of a low-income subculture and those below average I.Q.’s were dropped from the sample.1 In 1975, similar procedures for administering the questionnaire were used with the 1969 sample. Additional instructions were given on how to follow up those students who were no longer in school or had left the community. The 1979 follow-up involved mailing questionnaires to the respondents. A discussion of respondent follow-up procedure is available in the Appendix E. Each state participating in the project was responsible for coding returned questionnaires in the 1979 follow-up. Responses were coded on ix» a prepared coding 1The few children whose parents were professionals or otherwise of high status were later eliminated, leaving a homogeneously low—income sample. "Special" classrooms, such as those made up of fast or slow learners, were not included. Children scoring below 60 on the Otis Lennon mental ability test administered, and other children believed by their teachers to be unable to read and understand the questions, were also removed from the sample. 56 sheet from which computer cards were keypunched. The coding of occupational aspirations and expectations was completed at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro for all the states in order to ensure uniformity of codes. Items reflecting important life events were coded at the University of Kentucky. Computer cards were then sent to North Carolina State University for transfer to data tapes. Conceptual & Operational Definitions of Variables The primary dependent variable in the present study is the occupational attainment reported by the youth in 1979. Conceptually, occupational attainment is defined as the level of prestige attached to the occupation in which a person is engaged at a specified time in their life. Respondents were asked the following questions: "Now, what have been your job experiences? Please give the name of the job or type of work you had during each of the following years.“ (Refer to Appendix 0, item 8). The responses were then coded using a NORC (National Opinion Research Center) classification structure developed by North and Hatt (Reiss, 1961). The NORC classification scheme was derived as a prestige continuum of occupations. Ten major categories of occupations were listed with job choices being representative of each category. Status scores, using the NORC scale, ranged from 93-34. 57 The six categories of independent variables (refer to Table 2) that were used in the analysis are family background factors (X1), child’s characteristics (X2), parenting factors (X3), significant others’ influence (X4- outside family members), youth achievement motivation (X5), and educational attainment as of 1979 (X5). Since not all the variables were present for each year, refer to Appendix A for the year that the specific variables are collected. The above variables will be defined in order: (1) Family Background Factors: This is a composite socioeconomic status score based on the breadwinner’s occupation (if not father, mother), the level of schooling of both mother and father, and a six-item measure of social participation (e.g., voter registration and voting behavior, church attendance, memberships 'hi organizations, frequency of watching television (news), and reading the newspaper). (Refer to Appendix C, items 7-15, 30, 31, and 36.) Family background factors were assessed 'hi 1969. Education is coded into years of schooling, occupation to NORC score, and mother’s "social participation" as a combination of scores. All of these scores are compiled as one score by the original investigators. (2) Significgnt Others’ Influence in the Family: Conceptually, significant others are defined as individuals such as parents, friends, teachers, and/or relatives who have .a profound influence ("1 youth’s career choice 58 decisions. Essentially, this category reflects the influence of family members. It includes an indicator of whom the youth has talked to regarding future plans as well as parenting variables. Respondents checked on the questionnaire whom they talked with about future plans and indicated one person whose advice is more important to them to their future plans. (Refer to Appendix B, items 11 and 12.) Parenting practices are measured in four areas: (a) Mother’s status projections for their children, (b) Mother’s achievement orientations, (c) Child-rearing values, and (d) Maternal child-rearing practices. The above variables are defined in order. (a) Mothers’ status projections for their children: Conceptually, status projections refer to the mothers’ aspiration levels for their children’s future educational and occupational attainment. Maternal educational expectations for the respondent were obtained in 1969 (when the children were fifth and six grades) via ”How far do you think (nnmn) really will go in school?" and coded into one of seven categories (refer to Appendix C, item 6). Maternal occupational expectations for the child were similarly asked, "What kind of job do you think (mg) really will have when he grows up?" It is coded into NORC scores (refer to Appendix C, item 3). 59 (b) Mothers’ Achievement Orientationnz Conceptually, achievement orientations refer to the attitude of the mothers’ toward success and goal attainment in their own lives and were assessed with Rosen’s six "achievement value" orientation scale (refer to Appendix C, items 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and 27). (c) Child-rearing values: Conceptually, child- rearing values refer to the characteristics or qualities that parents foster in their children while raising them. They were measured by Kohn’s sixteen-item factor scale designed to determine the personality characteristics of the child that the mother values most highly. This is known as Kohn’s Parental Value Scale. Each mother was asked to select the three characteristics which were most important for a child for her child’s age. Factor scores were assigned to each mother’s set of responses by the original investigators. A positive scale score indicates a preference for "self-direction" while a negative score suggests a desired orientation of "behavior conformity" in children her child’s age. (Refer to appendix C, item 29). (d) Mnternal child-renring practices: Conceptually, child-rearing practices refer to parental behaviors perceived by the children as an expression of specific parenting values and characteristics. They were measured as factor scores on three multiple-item scales: Loving, Punishing, and Demanding from Bronfenbrenner’s parental 60 behavioral questionnaire. The child is asked about maternal child-rearing practices in terms of how he/she perceives his/her mother interacting with him/her in a: variety of childrearing situations (refer to Appendix B, items 50-94). The sum of scores for each factor of Loving, Punishing, and Demanding was adjusted by the original investigators so the high score means, respectively, high loving, high punishing, and high demanding behaviors of the mother. (3) Child Characteristics: Included in this category are the following variables. (a) Mental ability (1.0.): It was assessed in 1969 by the child’s score on the Otis-Lennon mental ability test, a group-administered mental ability measurement. Otis and Lennon (1969) reported validity coefficients in the range of .60 - .80 by testing it against other mental ability measures. (b) Self-concept: Conceptually, self-concept refers to the individual youth’s conception of himself/herself, including values, abilities, goals, and personal worth. It was assessed by the youth’s response to a scale developed by Lipsit (1958). The scale was used in 1969 and consisted of 22 descriptive words which the children checked according to how well they believed it described the way they felt about themselves (refer to Appendix B, items 95-116). In 1975, a measure of self-concept was not administered. But in 1979, 61 a seven-item measure of self-concept was employed, which was not used in the present study. (c) Academic motivation: Conceptually, academic motivation refers to the youth’s attitude toward school performance and achievement. It includes. ”liking" school and is included in the 1969 and 1975 models. In this study, only 1969 measure was used. It was assessed by six item from Elder’s (1962) scale, and four items from Weiner’s Achievement Motivation scale. Elder’s scale included such items as "I am interested in my school work,“ and "I really try to get good grades." It consists of six items and the respondent’s choice of answer was a five-response schema ranging from always to never (refer to Appendix B, items 19- 24). Weiner’s scale consisted of four items, and included such items as "When I am sick, I would rather..." or "After summer vacation I am ..." The respondent’s choice of answer was selected from a two-response category that represent either low or high motivation of the respondents (refer to Appendix B, items 31, 32, 37, and 40). The score for each item was combined and adjusted by the original investigators so the high score means high academic motivation. (4) Significant chans’ Influence (Extra Familial): It is an indicator of whom the youth has talked to regarding future plans. If respondents checked on the questionnaire persons other than his/her family members, such as teachers, 62 friends, neighbors, relatives, priests, etc., as persons whom they talked with about future plans, it constitutes as responses fitting to this category (refer to Appendix B, items 11 and 12). (5) Achievement Motivation: Conceptually, it refers to youth’s motive to attain some standard of accomplishment in their educational and occupational career. It was measured by the following variables. (a) Educational aspirations and exoectatinnn: These variables were assessed in 1969, 1975, and 1979. A distinction is made between aspirations and expectations. Aspirations refer to what one would like to achieve, while expectations refer to what one really thinks one is going to achieve. In 1969 and 1975, the youth were asked "If you had your choice, how far would you like to go in school?“ and “How far do you think you really will go in school?" to measure aspirations and expectations, respectively (refer to Appendix B, items 13 and 14). In 1979, the youth were asked "Looking into the future, which of the following statements best describe how much additional education and training you would really like to have?" and "... how much additional education and training you think you really will get?I (refer to Appendix 0, items 35 and 36). The respondent checked 1 of 8 choices ranging from trade or vocational/technical school to desiring no further 63 education. In each year, the responses for educational aspirations and expectations were treated separately. (b) Occupational aspirations and expectations: These were operationalized parallel to the level of educational aspiration and expectation variables in each ,year. The actual item is in 1969, 1975 and 1979, "If you could choose any job you wanted, what kind of job would you really like to have in the future?" and "What kind of job do you think you really will have in the future?" (refer to Appendix 3, items 9 and 10, and Appendix 0, items 33 and 34). Both occupational "aspirations" and "expectations" components are in NORC scores. In each year, the responses for occupational aspirations and expectations were treated separately. (6) Educational Attainment: Conceptually, educational attainment refers to the level of education an individual obtains at a certain point in their life (e.g., in this study, as is assessed as of 1979, or four years after high school). Respondents were asked in 1979, "How far have you gone in school?" Respondents were asked to check one of the ten response categories (refer to Appendix 0, item 16). The responses were then converted to the scale that corresponds to the responses for educational aspirations and expectations. 64 Overview of Analyses Stage one of the data analysis involved descriptive statistics which describe the characteristics of the sample, the way the sample responded on the major variables, response distributions, intercorrelations of all the independent and dependent variables, and in some instances, scattergrams of bivariate relations. Zero-order correlations, means, and standard deviations (Hi variables appear in Appendix F, Table 1. Descriptive linear analysis is inadequate for explaining the influence of ecological factors over time. Therefore, 'hi order to better understand complex phenomena such as predictive factors of career development process, it was necessary to use multivariate regression models rather than the linear, bivariate models that are most commonly used. Thus, stage two (H’ the analysis used the multiple regression technique to assess the overall explanatory power of the conceptual model of youth occupational attainment. This kind of analysis is more appropriate in situations where more than one independent variable influences the dependent variable. It provides an hierarchical order of information about the variables which have the most influence in predicting successful career attainment. In stage three of the analyses, a path analysis model was used, depending on strength of relationships found among the variables tested. It was used to determine the relative 65 importance of the selected independent variables over time. Path analysis is a: method of decomposing and interpreting linear relationships among a: set of variables by assuming that a prior causal ordering is known among the variables. Based on the literature review, and on the time the variables were collected by the original investigators (i.e., 1969, 1975, and 1979), it was assumed that the ordering of the selected independent variables in the study was known. This was an initial step toward causal modeling. The path analysis itself does not indicate the causal order of the variables. The researcher does that. The special strength of the path model is in the graphic portrayal of the results. In addition, trend analysis was applied to analyze the trend for youth educational and occupational expectations and aspirations at the three periods: pre- adolescent, adolescent, and post-adolescent periods (to test for hypothesis 2). To further analyze the trend, after accounting for race and sex variables, Multiple Classification Analysis (MCA) was used. I}; is more appropriate than linear regression because several of the predictors are not linear in their effects. The key feature of Multiple Classification Analysis is that it can show the effects of any predictor, both before and after taking into account the effects of all other predictors (to test for hypothesis 3). This analysis provides an "adjusted mean" 66 for each category of the predictors tested (Nie et al., 1975). The basic path model is diagrammed in Figure 7. All analyses were carried out using the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) computer program (Nie et al., 1975). The basic model that was analyzed is a recursive model in which the variables that were incorporated have a fairly clear causal ordering in the literature. The path model examined in this study included one exogenous variable]: the family background factor which is a composite scone of the breadwinner’s occupation, father and mother’s educational level, and mother’s social "participation." The following equations were used to estimate the direct effects on each dependent variable: (Refer to Table 1 on page 24 for variable names of X1 - X7.) X2 = P21X1 + P23X3 + Race + Sex + e X3 = P31X1 + P34X4 + Race + Sex + e Race + Sex + e X .h II + P41x1 X 01 II P51X1 + P52X2 + P53X3 + P54X4 + Race + Sex + e X6 = P61X1 + P62X2 + P63X3 + P64X4 + Pesxs + Race + Sex + e 1An exogenous variable is a variable whose variability is assumed to be determined by causes outside the causal model (Nie et al., 1975). 67 x7 = P71x1 + P72X2 + P73X3 + P74X4 + P75X5 + P76X6 + Race + Sex + e The analysis of each of the six equations involved a hierarchical exclusion method of multiple regression. The variables are examined against the dependent variable based on temporal priority as illustrated in Figure 7. Race and sex were controlled in all equations. Only those samples that have the data for all three periods were analyzed. The number totaled 544: 241 males, 303 females, 188 blacks, and 356 whites.1 1Black males totaled 91, black females 97, white males 150, and white females 206. 68 .mq_;mco_um~mg chowpumcwuwca so: afico sop—m mcwpmuoe gum: we mcowga53mmm quwpm_pmum was» mpoz« eflumpmuwvcw cowpmwuommm $o mcowuumcwu x_mxpp zuwzv quoz szpamucou mo Emcmmwo sum: .5 mgzmwm m .< .000 x 5 & \ —mcm3wmp=o .mwm 3x coppa>_poz .504 mx pewscwapp< .um we _ 4 4-- »__Eaa .m_m mx _ mowumwgmpumcmzo N m.u__:u x xmm CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The first section of this chapter examines the statistical assumptions necessary for regression and subsequent path analysis; and the next section focuses on an examination of the hypotheses. Following the discussion of the hypotheses, a brief discussion of the impact of the studied predictors on youth career development is presented. Statistical Assumptions for Path Analysis Like all statistical analysis techniques, multiple regression and path analysis have a set of assumptions that necessarily must be met if it is to be considered "robust." Nie and his associates (1975) list the following basic statistical assumptions for regression and subsequent path analysis: (a) that the sample is randomly drawn; (b) that the dependent variable is normally distributed at even points along the independent variable; (c) that the regression is linear; and (d) that there is homogeneity of variance among the dependent variable scores at each point on the independent variable. Since the sample was drawn by a purposive stratified design, the use of regression, path analysis and significance tests based on assumptions of simple random 69 70 sampling could be questioned. However, Proctor (1974), the project statistician of the original investigation, explains that the purposive sampling method was justified considering the objective for the original wave of data collection which was to compare the goals of low-income youth from three subcultures ("rural Negro," "urban Negro," and "rural White Appalachian)1 in the South, since "a stratified sample design usually leads in) greater internal diversity than a simple random sample (p.61)." Proctor (1974) further elaborates in reference to the initial sampling strategy that the "levels of significance computed using conventional regression theory assumptions will be taken as correct." The ability to use analytic procedures in order to ascertain causal linkage between variables is predicted based on the fact that the scale of 1According to the original investigators, the achievement literature has focused on values, child-rearing practices, and the child’s self-concept as important variables. Since these are culturally based and since there is evidence of subcultural differences in them as between social classes, race, ethnic groups, and people living in rural and in urban areas, it was thought appropriate to conceive of several "low-income subcultures" from which the sample would in: drawn, namely "rural Negro" "urban Negro" and "rural White Appalachian." These "subcultures," according to the original investigators, were the principal large "poverty groups" 'hi the states involved. It was realized that they only partly met the criteria of a subculture, but it seemed desirable to select samples that would be as homogeneous as possible, economically and culturally, so that the relationship of other variables to achievement motivation within each group could be assessed (Coleman, 1974). 71 measurement of the dependent variable is at least on an interval level. In the present study, this was the case. The occupational score was developed as a prestige or status continuum (Reiss, 1961). The NORC Scale for occupations places the prestige scores on a partially ordered scale which is designed to reflect a social-status continuum. (For a discussion of the representativeness of the NORC occupations see Reiss, 1961.) In general, the construction of the scale may be taken to reflect a continuum of occupational prestige. Examination of Hypotheses The five hypotheses that were presented for investigation at the end of Chapter three were tested through the use of path analytic procedures. The analyses provided information on the model’s ability to explain the occupational attainment process of youth, as well as the magnitude of importance of the predictors on youth career development over time. The specific hypotheses are presented in the following section. Hynnthasja 1: The effects of early socialization experience on youth achievement motivation The first hypothesis deals with the relative importance of the selected independent variables (i.e., family background factors, child’s characteristics, significant others’ influence) on youth Achievement motivation levels iri the preadolescent years (1969), 72 adolescent years (1975), and post-adolescent years (1979). It was stated, as follows: H1 Among low-income, southern, rural youth, the level of relationship between three independent variables (i.e., family background factors, child characteris- tics, and significant others’influences) and the intervening variable of achievement motivation (i.e., educational and occupational aspirations and expec- tions) in the preadolescent years will be positively related to those of adolescent and post-adolescent years. As shown in Table 3, the total variability of youth occupational aspirations and expectations explained by three groups of independent variables was the greatest in the adolescent years (R2 -= .16), followed by those of post- adolescent periods (R2 . .12) and pre-adolescent periods (R2 = .096). Table 4 shows the total variability of youth educational aspirations and expectations explained by the same independent variables. It reveals that in the preadolescent years the selected independent variables accounted for 20 percent of the variability in educational aspirations and expectations, as compared to 26 percent of variance accounted for in the adolescent years. The same independent variables that explained 20 percent and 26 percent of 1969 and 1975 variances, respectively, were 73 839.29. .83 NH. .. m 8385 5.3 .3. u €89.23 .8; 80. .u m N N“ N 3:3 I ADN .8 ..m. gnaw ufiommafi-umom «me.o I “saw .ov m.aamnm>o «ausow.uauummaon< #3 u SN .3 m dag Haas» UBUBHBBM ER» 3: - m2. 39% a. $38.- moo. on. $38.- Bo. 5.. $58. 808. $8. 38m «396 4:. m8. a. $52. So. 03. A808.- 88. $8. .55 Ban: mucosa-HM Puafio “BREE BUM 4:. do. as. 3.3. 08. 9:. $93. So. 08. -803 £35 .43. So. to. 935. So. on. $38. 30. Re. 5% edema fl; 8:. N8. 3. 80. 38. 3. 08. $0. yum «. k «- 4N:- flo. N8. «3... .38.. as. «3... so. so. 82 w lllllllllll Sam 855 mm mm. .83 a 58 mm mm «aw-ml film: mm 590». unwommHowmumom ago». Emu-.303. Easy-mfiuaflommmpm msowumuumoxm cam mcowumnmmm¢ Hmcowuwguoo Ammo-mumuumg van maoUm-dbqu Hmaowuwmaue nudow ufiummaofim-umom EM. 588302 58338.85 mo 398m m5 pom moan-mono» 5mm 9.3 $38 3an gm .m magma 74 8383. .83 no. a No as 34 u go .3 m 385 3H5» ufiumflfi-uuom ASN.8? J3 om. .- Nm no.3 .- SN .8 ..H 3.85 "flaw “.80-.303. €39.93 .wH.v om. .- NM *mmd I CHN .8 m Ham-Hus "58.»- ufiummaoummum Ego ...B - oz no. v on on $398.- Noo. «no. «3.- moo. $2.33.- Noo. moo. hash «388 3.38. Hoooo. Homoo. S. Noo. 5.358. moo. SN. snow-A «33 u» 385g Naufio ”.5032me A838.- ooo. Nmo. om. ms. .5. 2. moo. ma. flflfl h... «. #3335 93.20 A858.- ooo. oNo. «fl. omo. mooogmsvoo. moo. o2. 958303 odfim A838.- ooo. So. «8.- mooo. mono. «om. So. So. “am ABVooo- do. do. «no; woo. woo. «if woo. woo. 8mm 3mm mwcmnumm NM 3mm mwdmnomm mm .33 mmfimfi NM NM 550-». ufiommafiuumom lapse-w “Ewan-.303 [nu-mo.»- uamommHfiumum mmaflmflg ”63593 mcowumuuwaxm wan muggy-Eg- ngwuwunvm llllll $833896. can mac-Egg Hmcowumuflfimv 590.». u503H8m-umom vow £58303. .uamommaovmmum mo 398m mfi Mom $H§> fiwm m5 mam-Hag 3an 585m J 3an 75 unable to show any statistically significant associations with 1979 educational aspirations and expectations (R2 == .03, N.S.) Based on the results reported in Tables 3 and 4, Hypothesis 1 was partially supported. That is, the level of associations between the selected independent variables and occupational expectations and aspirations in the preadolescent periods is positively related to those of the adolescent and post-adolescent periods, but the degree of relationship is stronger in the adolescent period than in the post-adolescent period. This relationship does not hold for educational expectations and aspirations. Hypothesis 2: Developmental trend for achievement motivation Hypothesis 2 examined the developmental trend of achievement motivation (i.e., educational and occupational aspirations and expectations) at three successive age levels. The mean differences and correlations between aspirations and expectations have been calculated to assess the developmental trend of youth aspirations and expectations separately. Two sub-hypotheses were stated, as follows: H21 Among southern, low-income, rural youth, the levels of aspiration and expectation in three successive age levels demonstrate a negative (downward) trend over time. 76 H22 Among low-income, southern, rural youth, the differences between aspiration and expectation levels will increase over time. As shown in Tables 5 and 6, and in Figures 8 and 9, Hypotheses 21 and 22 are supported. With regard to H2}, Table 5 and Figure 8 show that occupational expectations showed a significant downward trend [t¢L - -4.19 < -2.4 . Scheffecv (2, 00)]. Youth aspiration level did not show any significant trend over time. This result can be interpreted as showing that the youth do not lower their occupational aspiration levels over time as they move from the preadolescent period to the post-adolescent period. However, they adjust (lower) their expectation levels as they grow older, perhaps because they realize the limitations either in their ability or in their environment, while still maintaining the high aspiration levels set in their elementary school years. Table 6 and Figure 9 show the developmental trend of educational aspirations and expectations. The level of educational aspirations indicates -a negative ‘linear trend over time [t¢L - -l3.67 < -2.4 - Scheffecv (2, a:)] as well as a negative quadratic trend [tsz - -5.395 < -2.4 - Scheffecv (2, co )1. This means that the level of youth educational aspirations decreases over time as they move from pre-adolescent through adolescent to the post- 77 Table 5. Summary Table Showing the Mean Difference, Coorelation Coefficients, and Trend analysis of Occupational Asp./Exp. for the Sample of Preadolescent, Adolescent, and Post-Adolescent Youth Pre- Adolescent Post- adolescent adolescent Overall Asp./Exp. Asp./Exp. Asp./£xp. NORC Mean 70.35/ 69.55/ 69.75/ 182.56/ Score 67.70 64.12 63.997 163.29 Mean Differences 2.65 5.43 5.75 19.29 Coorelation .602 .503 .591 .786 T-value 6.42 11.79 10.09 14.10 df 523 465 346 543 Significance .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001 (two-tail) Trend Analysis (Linear and Quadratic trend from 1969, 1975 to 1979) Occupational Aspirations: tDL - -1.52 > -2.4 - Scheffecv(2,bo) at o‘— .05 (There is no significant linear relationship over time.) Occupational Expectations: t$L - —4.19 < -2.4 - Scheffe v(2,00) at o<- .05 (There is a significant negatlve linear relationship over time.) 72 7o 68 66 54 62 so 58 55 54 52 so 78 Aspirations ----- Expectations ns not significant * d- - .05 70,35 Aspirations O— . (ns) : 62.56 69.36 s 1 - I~‘§~ I E 67: 7 ‘~‘~~ E : I T--------‘ 1 64-12 g I l 63.99 I l . : . 2 Expectations* . I : l I I I : - , I : 1 i - . 52.09 i i Q : I ' Occupational I : : Attainment 3 1 : I 5 l ; I g t : . : I I I I I I I l l 1969 1975 1979 Figure 8. Developmental Trend for Occupational Aspirations and EXpectations 79 adolescent periods. Furthermore, the rate of decline is more rapid as they grow older. The level of youth educational expectations demonstrates a negative linear trend over time [tOL a -140.2 < -2.4 - ScheffeCV (2,°°)]. However, the rate of decline is more pronounced from pre-adolescence to adolescence than from adolescence to post-adolescence. In other words, the results reported in Tables 5 and 6, and in Figures 8 and 9 all confirm the negative linear trend over time in youth achievement motivation levels, except occupational aspirations. This means that low-income, rural youth lower their occupational expectations (not aspirations) and educational aspirations and expectations, as they grow older (for reasons not explored in the present study), but maintain the high occupational aspirations they had in pre- adolescent years. With regard to H22, the results reported in Tables 5 and 6, and in Figures 8 and 9 all confirm that there is a significant difference between youth aspiration and expectation levels, in terms of both occupation and education. Also the gap between aspirations and expectations increases over time: that is from 2.65 differences iri NORC score iri the preadolescent period to 5.43 in the adolescent period, to 5.75 in the post- adolescent period. Tables 5 and 6 also indicate that aspirations and expectations are highly correlated (r - .786 80 Table 6. Summary Table Showing the Mean Difference, Coorelation Coefficients, and Trend analysis of Educational Asp./Exp. for the Sample of Preadolescent, Adolescent, and Post-Adolescent Youth Pre- Adolescent Post- adolescent adolescent Overall Asp./Exp. Asp./Exp. Asp./Exp. Mean Score 5.93/ 5.58/ 4.60/ 14.16/ (1-7)* 5.42 4.63 4.09 12.63 Mean Differences .5095 .9506 .507 1.489 Coorelation .607 .641 .506 .731 T-value 8.59 13.77 7.72 13.08 df 523 465 427 543 Significance .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001 (two—tail) *Refer to Appendix 8, items 13 and 14. Trend Analysis (Linear and Quadratic trend from 1969, 1975 to 1979) Ed. Aspirations: A Negative linear trend as well as a Negative quadratic trend tDL - -13.67 < -2.4 - Scheffecv(2,oo) at d - .05 tQQ . -3.74 < -2.4 - Scheffecv(2,oo) at d - .05 Ed. Expectations: A Negative linear trend and a Positive quadratic trend t-pL - -140.2 < -2.4 = Scheffecv(2,oo) at d- .05 th - 5.94 > 2.4 - Scheffecv(2,oo) at x.- .05 81 Aspirations ..... Expectations 5:9 As irations $k P I 514 l I -~ _ Educational I 416 ~"+ Attainment i : 4.0 : I I Expectations ' 2 i 3 I I I I I I I | I I I I I I . ! I l I I - l i 1969 1975 1979 Figure 9. Developmental Trend for Educational Aspirations and Expectations 82 between occupational aspirations and expectations: r = .731 between educational aspirations and expectations). In summary, the findings from hypotheses 21 and 22 indicate that although youth aspiration and expectation levels are highly correlated, the youth show significant differences in their aspiration and actual expectation levels, and the differences increase as they grow older. Hvoothesis 3; Achievement motivation, and educational and occupational attainment Hypothesis 3 examined the relationship between earlier levels of achievement motivation (i.e., educational and occupational aspirations and expectations of preadolescence and adolescence) and achievement motivation in the post-adolescent years. It also examined the effect of youth post-adolescent achievement motivation (but in this case, only occupational expectations were used. Footnote 1 on page 83 explains the reasons for selecting this variable) on the final educational and occupational attainment. Two sub-hypotheses were stated, as follows: H31 The level of achievement motivation in post- adolescence is positively related to achievement motivation in the preadolescent and adolescent periods. H32 The level of achievement motivation in post- adolescence is positively related to the level of final educational and occupational attainment. 83 Multiple Classification Analysis (MCA) was applied to assess the effect of the previous achievement motivation (i.e., in the preadolescent and adolescent periods) on the final achievement motivation levels (i.e., in the post- adolescent period), after controlling for race and sex. Hypothesis 31 is partially supported based on the findings reported in Tables 7 and 8. That is, only occupational (but not educational) expectations in post-adolescent period are positively related to youth educational expectations stated by the youth in their preadolescent and adolescent years.1 Table 7 shows the effect of preadolescent and adolescent educational expectations on post-adolescent 1A word of caution should be exercised, however, in order to interpret the findings and make this statement. This is because there was found to be a specific variable at each time period (i.e., 1969, 1975, and 1979) that has more predictive power than other variables to account for the variability of educational and occupational outcomes. For example, as shown in Table 2 in Appendix F, youth educational attainment (measured in 1979) is most highly correlated with the adolescent educational expectations (r - .63), whereas youth occupational attainment is most highly correlated with the post-adolescent occupational expectations (r . .59). It can be interpreted as an indication that the youth educational goal 'HI high school years has the strongest predictive power for actual educational attainment, whereas youth occupational attainment is best predicted by post- adolescent occupational expectation. (See also the discussion under Hypothesis 32.) After consulting Table 2 in Appendix F, educational aspiration variable is selected from four variable in 1969 educational and occupational aspirations and expectations as the one that is most highly related to the attainment variable. The same procedure is executed in each of the remaining periods to select the one that is most highly correlated to the final outcome variable. 84 Table 7. The effect of 1969 and 1975 educational expectations on 1979 occupational expectations Source of Sum of Of Mean F variation squares square Covariates 1355.55 2 677.77 5.21** Race 1349.54 1 1349.54 10.37* Sex 9.51 1 9.51 .07 ("5) Main Effects 5397.07 2 2698.53 20.74* Ed. exp. ’69 810.32 1 810.32 6.23** Ed. exp. ’75 3733.75 1 3733.75 28.7* Z-Way Interactions 19.78 1 19.78 .15 (ns) Ed. exp. ’69 and 19.78 1 19.78 .15 Ed. exp. ’75 Explained 6772.39 5 1354.48 10.41* Residual 34863.87 268 130.09 Total 41636.26 273 152.51 * d <.001 ** K < .01 ns -- not significant 85 occupational expectations. The MCA technique was applied to control for the effects of race and sex. Based on the results reported in Table 7, a significant effect was found for both preadolescent and adolescent educational aspirations on post-adolescent occupational expectations, even after the effects of race and sex were controlled. In addition, race was found to have a significant influence on the level of youth occupational expectation, while sex was not. Table 7 also indicates no interaction effect between preadolescent educational expectations and adolescent educational expectations. This may be interpreted as indicating that educational expectations at each period have a separate influence on post-adolescent occupational expectations. Table 8 shows the effect of youth educational expectations in the preadolescent and post-adolescent years on the post-adolescent educational expectations. Again, MCA technique was applied. There appears to be an effect of preadolescent and adolescent educational expectations on the level of the post-adolescent educational expectations; however, when the effect of race is controlled, there is no significant effect of the two variables left on the post- adolescent educational expectations. Therefore, it is concluded that this effect is caused by the race variable rather than the two independent variables. 86 Table 8. The effect of 1969, and 1975 educational expectations on 1979 educational expectations Source of Sum of Of Mean F variation squares square Covariates 9.89 2 4.95 3.38** Race 8.69 1 8.69 5.93* Sex .86 1 .86 .59 (n5) Main Effects 3.83 2 1.92 1.31 (M) Ed. exp. ’69 .59 1 .59 .40 ("5) Ed. exp. ’75 3.54 l 3.54 2.41 (M) Z-Hay Interactions 1.89 1 1.89 1.29 (M) Ed. exp. ’69 and 1.89 1 1.89 1.29 Ed. exp. ’75 Explained 15.62 5 3.12 2.13* Residual 462.86 316 1.47 Total 478.48 321 1.49 * -d (.01 ** 'd < .06 ns -- not significant 87 Hypothesis 32 is supported based on the findings reported in Table 9. That is, occupational and educational expectations in post-adolescence are positively related to the final educational and occupational attainment. Table 9 shows the multiple regression results in which educational and occupational attainment are analyzed in relation to achievement motivation. The strongest predictor for educational attainment is adolescent educational expectations, whereas the strongest predictor for occupational attainment is post-adolescent occupational expectations. (See also the discussion under Footnote 1 on page 83.) Table 9. Regression Results of Youth Achievement Motivation on Educational & Occupational attainment Educational Occupational Attainment Attainment r R2 R2 Beta r R2 R2 Beta change change Ed. Exp. 69 .19 - - - .12 - - - Ed. Exp. 75 .63 .23 .23 .53* .23 - - - Occ Exp. 79 .48 .43 .21 .33* .59 .26 .26 .51* 88 Hypothesis 4: A path modeling Hypothesis 4 examined both the direct and indirect effects of the selected independent variables (i.e., family background factors, child’s characteristics, significant others’ influences) on youth occupational attainment. Direct effects are assessed through multiple regression analysis. Indirect effects of these independent variables on youth occupational attainment are assessed through a path analysis technique, using intervening variables such as youth achievement motivation and educational attainment as linkages to the final outcome. Hypothesis 4 was stated, as follows: H4 Among low-income, southern, rural youth, there is a positive relationship between the selected indepen- dent variables (i.e., family background factors, child characteristics, and significant others’ influ— ences) and occupational attainment either directly or indirectly through such intervening variables as the achievement motivation or the educational attainment. As shown in Tables 10 and 11, hypothesis 4 is supported, but only indirect relationships. are confirmed. It was found that there is no direct association between the selected independent variables ‘tested and ‘the final occupational attainment. The associations are mediated 89 Table 10. Direct Effects of the Selected Independent Variables on Occupational Attainment Direct Effect Occupational Attainment Independent R2 R2 Change Standardized Variables Beta Race ___ .000 .02 (ns) Sex .034 .034 .19* Family Background .037 .003 .06 (ns) Child Charactersitics .037 .000 -.04 (ns) Significant Other’s Influence Inside the Family .040 .003 .04 (ns) Outside the Family .041 .001 .07 (ns) Achievement Motivation .381 .34 .53* (.53)1 Educational Attaionment .385 .004 .07* (.09)1 Overall F (8, 269) = 21.00* R2 = .38 (Adjusted R2 = .37) * 04< .05 ns - not significant 1The path coefficients in parentheses indicate the path coefficients after removing the non-significant vairables from the regression equation. These values are reflected in the path diagram in Fig. 10. The oyerall F (3, 273) = 41.65 for the final regression equation R = .38 (.37, adjusted). 9(l ucoaowuuuo And. I No ooouaoono no. I Iooo «no unw>oaou uouuo nu u 0 mo«u«uuoou sung mo noaan> UAu uuoauo .m nanny .u navcoao< «no on wouuoauu ou- anowunuavo you Ann. I Nu «Inmanoao on. I Nu . .oo.n~ I “on“.no o HHIuIIo Ian Incowuanvo cow». u nononuoouon ow ocowunnao a~¢IuN I Au~u.nvh onus» «nu no nun. counuouauu unwouulou can noun 3.33... EPA «noun-owuoa ucoao>oanuo you noun mucouuuuuoou noon can noaonwuoo unwouuucuuo .o.oHan a“ .- .o«nuuuoz ucoao>uwzu< no. v a I Ann.onn. I on INo.o~ I AoAN.Ao u Hfiuuuso Ao~.vn~. I Nu Ion.o I A-~.oo u HHIIIIo “HoooauaaauUOV Iann.v Inn. Ioo. ”ow. o3". eowuu>auox goo-III«;0< away No. nmzo n.I “oo. ”no. Amzv oo. Amzo n~.I ooo. on". afloanu Io«.u=o I~o~.o .oo. Inoo. «no. on“. Amzo oo. Amzv noo- ooo. ow". sauna» Ioouaa . oucoaauaH n.uonuo ucnuauucuum «Ao~.v INN. INo. ono. ooo. Ino~.o Ino- Ioo. moo. om". Iowan» Iuouuuuoau o.on«£u IRAH.V In". Ioo. ooo. ono. «Ao~.v Ion. IN“. noo- ooo. ocaouoquo saga.“ Amzo No. Amzo no. moo. ooo. Amzo oo. Amzo No._ ooo. ago. new Io~.I .Ioo.I noo- noo. In~.u Ioouoa ono. ono.. Iona . «no» «and «mango «a nu anon anon owe-go «a nu vouwvunvanum .mmmuvunvcnuoca vonuvunvcnum vouuvuuvcnuuca ucoecuuuu< uncowununvm puooacqnuu< Hooouuoaauuo.oo nounnwuup unavoooovaH vouooaom no nuuouuu uuouwvcu .3 0.3a." 91 through achievement motivation and educational attainment variables. Hypothesis 5: The final path model The last hypothesis proposed examined the overall explanatory power of the path model for occupational attainment. It was stated, as follows: H5 Among low-income, southern, rural youth, the levels of influence of the selected independent variables (i.e., family background factors, child characteris- tics, and significant others’ influences) and the intervening variables (i.e., achievement motivation and educational attainment) are positively related to the level of youth occupational attainment. As shown in Table 12, hypothesis 5 is supported. The independent variables analyzed are all found to be significantly related -- either directly or indirectly -- to the outcome variable of occupational attainment, and the directions of the associations were all found to be positive, indicating that the levels of influence of the selected independent variables and intervening variables are positively related to the level of youth occupational attainment. Table 10 also shows that 38 percent of the variability of occupational attainment is accounted for by 92 Table 12. Decomposition of Effects CH” Significant Predictors of Occupational Attainment for Southern, Low—Income Rural Youth Dependent Path Indirect Total Variables Coefficients Effect (Direct) Ed. Attainment .09 ___ .09 Achievement Motivation .53 .03 .56 (’79 Occ. Exp.) (through Ed. Attainment) Significant Other’s Influence Parents .009 .04 (through Ed. Attainment) .03 (through Child Characteristics) Outsiders Child Charactersitics .02 .11 (through Ed. Attainment) .09 (through Ach. Motivation) Family Background .02 .18 (through Ed. Attainment) .12 (through Ach. Motivation) .01 (through Sig. Other’s Inf.) .03 (through Child Characteristics) 1Race and sex were controlled for all path equations. 2Refer to Tables 10 and 11, and Figure 10 for path coefficients and their significance levels. All path coefficients diagrammed in Figure 10 are significant at d < .05. 93 achievement motivation and educational attainment. Thirty- five percent of the variability in educational attainment is explained InI family background factors, child characteris- tics, significant others’ influence inside the family, and achievement motivation. The resulting path diagram, with significant values of path coefficients, is illustrated in Figure 10. It shows the causal framework on a temporal dimension with path coefficient reflecting the magnitude of the effects of predictors on youth occupational attainment. The remaining portion of this chapter is a brief discussion of the findings. Mainly, the impacts of the selected independent variables (”I youth career attainment are discussed. :33 mo. v o. no 23$?um moo mpchEmoo 53 :5 ucosooFo>oo Loooou pcoomopou< mo Poooz zoom och .oH ocomwu —mcmommuoo .oom ox _ - Ho.- .. aposmo .oom ox _ 94 n .< .uuo x am< .ooo .om< .om .om< .um .uxm .uuo mm..axm .um .axm .um mo. mmma mmmH. 0H. newscwouu< .vu mx ”1 _ mowumwcouoocozu m.oowoo Nx mm. 95 Discussion of Findings: The Effects of Different Environments on Youth Occupational Achievement The discussion here will be focused on the decomposition of effects of the significant contexts of development of rural, low-income youth over time, from their preadolescent through the adolescent to post-adolescent years. As indicated, none of the independent variables of the study show any significant direct associations with occupational attainment, except educational attainment and achievement motivation. (Refer to Figure 10 and Table 11.) This means that any influence exerted by the family background factors, parenting behaviors and values, and child characteristics are mediated through these two intervening variables. In addition, it should be noted that sex was found to have a significant effect on occupational attainment of youth, while race was not. In this case the level of girls’ occupational attainment was found to be lower than that of boys, when the level of all other variables was held constant.1 It should also be noted that the limitations with regard to the instruments and the sample of the original 1For a detailed discussion of gender differences in occupational attainment based on the same data set, refer to Kenkel (1980), and Kenkel and Gage (1983). 96 data set, and other limitations discussed previously (refer to pp. 11-14), apply to the findings of the present study. For example, the measurement of some variables was not given the same precision and throughness, as compared to other variables in the study. The influence of significant others in the family' was assessed using multiple factors, while that of the outside members was assessed using one item. When assessing the relative importance of these variables on youth career development, this aspect should be taken into account. However, this should not minimize the extent of the family influence found in the present study. Perhaps, with more detailed and elaborate measures of significant others’ influence outside family members, stronger effects might be found. The following is a summary of the effects of each predictor on youth occupational attainment. They are presented in 'the order of descending importance (refer to Table 11). 97 l. The Effect of Achievement Motivation (as measured by occupational and educational aspirations and expectations) As indicated, achievement motivation [post-high school occupational expectation, to be specific, (r = .6 with occupational aspiration)] was found to be the strongest predictor of occupational attainment. (Total effect is P== .56 as compared to P- .09 for educational attainment. Refer to Table 12.) Haller et al., (1974), Otto and Haller (1979), and Shapiro and Cmowley (1983) contend that youth achievement motivation is an inmbrtant predictor of their educational and occupational achievement. This study finds that occupational achievement motivation is a strong predictor of both educational and occupational attainment (path coefficient with educational attainment - .33; with occupational attainment - .53). Otto (1977) reported that the refinement of achievement motivation is closely tied to the main work that children and adolescents do over the developmental years, mainly, school work. Young people take into account their own ability when setting their aspirations (Sewell and Hauser, 1980; Otto and Haller, 1979), and family expectations are found to be an important influence as well (Leigh et al., 1986). As the path diagram shows (Figure 10), the results of this study indicate a similar causal ordering among these variables. Tables 10 and 11 show that OCCUpational achievement motivation significantly affects educational and occupational 98 attainment ( Pa- .33 and p== .53). Also, youth achievement motivation is affected by family background factors ( P= .21), and child’s characteristics ( 8= .15). 2. The Effect of Family Background Factors As shown in Tables 10 and 11, the effect of family background factors (measured ‘Hl this study as a: composite score of father or mother’s occupation, father and mother’s education, and mother’s social participation score) on occupational attainment is only indirect, mediated through educational attainment, youth achievement motivation, significant others’ influences, and child’s characteristics. Although there is no direct relationship observed, the total effect of family background factor exceeded that of educational attainment. (The total effect of family background factors is .18, as compared to .09 for educational attainment. Refer to Table 12.) This result is not surprising in that family background factors are conceptualized as an exogenous variable in the causal orderimg of the present path model. Because of this, its influence on youth occupational attainment over a ten-year span is preceded and mediated through every other variable in the causal chain. 99 3; The Effect of Child Characteristics Child characteristics as measured in this study by preadolescent mental ability, self-concept, and academic motivation were not related directly to occupational attainment. However, their indirect effect measured through intervening variables of achievement motivation and educational attainment totaled .11, which exceeds the total effect exerted by youth educational attainment ( P = .09). (Refer to Table 12.) The path diagram (Figure 10) shows not only the above causal relationships mediated through two intervening variables, but also its significant association with family background factors (P:- .28), and significant others’ (i.e,. parents) influences (P~- .24). 4. The Effect of Education There is considerable evidence from prior research "that the level of educational attainment is the best single predictor of youth occupational achievement (Blau and Duncan, 1967; Otto and Haller, 1979; Sewell and Hauser, 1975; Borus, 1983). While the present study does indeed find that educational attainment is one of several significant predictors of youth occupational attainment, the best predictor, however, is the youth’s post-adolescent occupational expectations ()5- .53, compared to P- .09 for educational attainment). In interpreting this finding it is IOO important to note that in 1979 when the sample was asked about their educational attainment and their occupational aspirations and expectations they (in many cases) had been out of school for several years. This additional time would likely have helped them refine their occupational aspirations and expectations in line with the reality of their occupational world. 5. The Effect of Significant Others’Influence (Parents’) The effect of parental influence is measured in this study' by mother’s achievement value orientation, child’s perception of parental behavior, mother’s child-rearing values, and mother’s status projections (educational and occupational) for the (finld. Although this variable does not have a significant direct relationship with the youth occupational attainment, the total effect along the path was found to be .04 (refer to Table 12). The effect is indirect, but statistically significant, mediated through educational attainment and through its influence on shaping child’s characteristics. 6. The Effect of Significant Others’ Influence (other than family members) The effect of outsiders’ influence (people outside the family -- teachers, peers, relatives, counselors, priests, neighbors, and adult friends) on youth occupational attainment was found to be insignificant (refer to 101 "Conceptual and Operational Definitions of the Variables" in Chapter Three, pp. 54-61). There were) no statistically significant associations found with any of the variables analyzed in the causal model (refer to Table 12). The insignificant effect of the outside members may be due to the measure used by the present investigator (refers to the discussion in pp. 95-96). The Effects of the Macrosystem The present path model accounted for 38 percent of occupational attainment of southern, low-income, rural youth, using such predictors as youth achievement motivation and educational attainment (after controlling for the sex and race effects). Thirty-five percent of educational attainment is accounted for by family background, child characteristics, significant other’s influence, and {youth achievement motivation. In comparison, Blau and Duncan (1967) explained 40 percent of occupational attainment of males, 24-60 years of age, using such structural variables as educational and occupational status of the respondents, and educational and occupational status of the respondents’ fathers. The Wisconsin-status attainment model accounted for 34 percent of the occupational attainment of white males (whose fathers were farmers), using socio-psychological factors of occupational attainment as it: was related to 102 educational attainment. The variables that accounted for 50 percent of educational attainment were levels of educational and occupational aspirations, significant other’s influence, academic performance, socio-economic status and mental ability. Comparing the amount of variance explained by each model yields the following conclusion. Although the specific variables investigated by each study are different, the general conclusions based on the performance of those variables in each model can be summarized as corresponding to what status-attainment theorists have contended. Parents with different occupational status hold different expectations for their children. Parental expectations tend to be adopted by children, and children’s expectations affect the occupation they eventually choose. In this study, it was found that family background factors, child characteristics, and parental influence measured in elementary school years affect the level of achievement motivation in high school years. The level of achievement motivation in high school years is positively related to the level of achievement motivation in post-high school years, which is found to be the best single predictor for youth occupational attainment of all the variables investigated in the present study. Thus, it can be concluded that the same, general interaction/transaction patterns asserted/found 'hi status- 103 attainment theories and empirical research between the youth and their environments hold true for low-income youth career development. Therefore, in order to assess the differences in (the achievement level of youth in different groupings, attention should be directed to the level of initial socioeconomic status of parents, or in) the magnitude of influence exerted by similar variables. ' In summary, it can be stated that the findings of the study supported the overall explanatory power of the proposed path model. (Thirty-eight percent (H: the variability in occupational attainment was accounted for by youth achievement motivation and leducational attainment.) The findings of the study also confirmed the general findings of other studies that indicate the importance of the effects of home circumstances and family resources over the effects of schooling (Coleman et al., 1966). Although indirect, the total effect of family on youth occupational attainment is calculated as .22 (the effect of parental influence plUs the effect of family background factors - .04 + .18), as compared to the total effect of educational attainment (IS-.09). The effect of family influence on low- income, southern, rural youth is also found to be larger than that of child characteristics (.22 as compared to .11). The magnitude of importance of the familial influence on youth career development over time is second only to youth achievement motivation. 104 Based on the findings of the present research, it can be concluded ‘that for southern, low~income, rural youth, achievement motivation in the post-adolescent years is the best single predictor for youth occupational attainment (perhaps for the reasons discussed previously), followed by early family influence, child preadolescent characteristics, and educational attainment in the post-adolescent period. In other words, the importance of early family influence and child characteristics on the ultimate occupational achievement of the youth over time should not be overlooked, simply because they have no direct relationship to final occupational attainment. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS Summary The primary emphasis of the present research was to examine the selected predictors of family background, child characteristics, significant others’ influence, achievement motivation, educational attainment on the dependent variable of youth occupational attainment. The secondary purpose was to conceptualize youth career development from an ecological perspective, using the ecological variables in the growing youth’s environment. This study considered responses from youth who had been followed over a ten-year period beginning when they were in the fifth and sixth grades, and continuing through the post-high school years (four years after high school). The path modeling techniques utilized were based on the work of status-attainment research. To this, an effort has been made to add spatial and temporal dimensions of the ecosystem theory. The sample for the original study (N = 544) represented youth from six southern states: 91 black males, 150 white males, 97 black females, and 206 white females. The original data from three data bases were collected 105 106 through in-class and mail survey questionnaire procedures during the years from 1969 to 1979. Based on an examination of the empirical (i.e.,path) modeling efforts of status-attainment researchers, and of the theoretical modeling efforts of human ecologists, five hypotheses were formulated. The first hypothesis predicted the effect of the early socialization experience (i.e., family background factors, child characteristics, and significant others’ influences) on early socialization outcome (i.e., youth achievement motivation as measured in terms of educational and occupational expectations and aspirations) at successive age levels. The results indicated that the effect of the early socialization experience measured when the youth were in grade school years was most strong in high school years and its effect diminished in post-high school years. However, the effect of early socialization was least apparent in the elementary school years. Testing of the hypothesis that predicted the developmental trend of youth achievement motivation at successive age levels indicated that the level of youth achievement motivation decreased over time (except for the level of occupational aspiration). In addition, the gap ‘between aspirations and expectations increased as the youth grow older. Also post-adolescent achievement motivation was positively related to that of the earlier periods (although 107 this relationship held true only for the post-adolescent occupational expectations with earlier educational expectations). And finally, post-adolescent achievement motivation was positively related to the final educational and occupational attainment. In reference to the last two hypotheses, the findings indicated that the level of ymuth occupational attainment was directly affected tn! their achievement motivation and educational attainment. The effects of family background factors, child characteristics, and significant others’ influence were found ix: be mediated through youth achievement motivation and educational attainment. Conclusions The following conclusions may be made based upon the findings from the present study: I. The career development of southern, low-income, rural youth is influenced by such ecological factors as the individual human system (i.e., youth mental ability, academic and achievement motivation, and self-concept), the family system (i.e., family structural variables such as occupational and educational status of parents, and mother’s "social participation," as well as family process variables such as parenting practices, values, maternal achievement orientations and status projections), and the school system. 2. The magnitude of importance of the human system (which 108 includes the variable of youth achievement motivation) is found to be larger than other systems investigated in the study. This is followed by familial influence, and the schooling effect. However, as a result of this study, it has been shown that the contributions of the family system to the individual system outcomes are substantial, and frequently underestimated. 3. The best single predictor for the occupational attainment of low-income, southern, rural youth is found to be their post-adolescent achievement motivation. 4. The impact cH’ early socialization experience (i.e., family background factors, parenting variables, and .youth early characteristics) on youth career development is indirect, mediated through youth achievement motivation and educational attainment. 5. For southern, low-income, rural youth, the findings indicate that the level of occupational aspiration does not change~ over time. But ‘the level of occupational expectations, as well as the level of educational aspiration and expectations, do change (decline) over a ten-year period. This makes the gap between occupational aspirations and expectations larger as youth grow older. 6. As in status attainment research on youth career development, the findings of the present study support a similar causal chain for the career development of southern, low-income, rural youth, as follows: 109 family youth ed. occ. background characteristics status status V (parenting factors included) Implications Implications for the Family Ecosystem Theorv The implications of the present study for the Family Ecosystem theory need to in; limited to a specific kind of development: that of career attainment process of low— income youth ‘hi southern, rural area. The findings from this study suggest several important implications for the Family Ecosytem theory regarding its basic assumptions described in Chapter two (pp. 41-42). This study points out that one of the major considerations of a researcher who studies career development of youth from an ecological perspective is the inclusion of both spatial and temporal dimensions of the growing youth’s environment. The inclusion of the temporal dimension is found to be important, since some of the predictors, as in the case of family background factors and parenting variables, do not show statistically significant, direct associations with the final occupational attainment which is assessed four years after high school. 110 Researchers who had focused on youth career development after adolescent years are, therefore, likely to report no relationships between these early influences and final attainment variables. Furthermore, they might well conclude that family influence is not a significant factor in youth career development. In this case, the long-term, indirect effect of the family is likely to be overlooked and minimized. The inclusion of the spatial dimension is also found to be important, since it allows the researcher to assess the magnitude of influence of different environmental systems of the youth. For example, the researcher can examine those that have immediate contacts with the growing youth as well as those that have less direct contact with the developing person (e.g., macrosystem variables). The above finding is related in) the Family Ecosystem theory assumption (e), stated in Chapter two (p. 42). The assumption states that youth career development must be examined in its wholeness -- both spatial and temporal -- of interactions and interdependence. The second and third considerations for the researcher with an ecological orientation are to view the family context as a functioning whole, and to emphasize the importance of the interdependencies that exist between and within environmental structures. The findings of this study confirm significant influences of family variables on youth 111 career development. Both the salient features of the family context (e.g., SES, residence) and other process features (e.g., parenting practices and values) are found to have positive associations with ,youth occupational attainment. This finding can be tied to basic assumptions of Ecosystem Theory (c), (d), and (e) stated in Chapter two. These assumptions emphasize the role of the family system as a significant environment for individual’s development. The findings from this study also implied that career development is an interaction between the youth and his/her environments, and that both human (or individual) and environmental variables need to be considered to paint a realistic picture of the developmental process. Individual traits such as self-concept, mental ability, academic and achievement motivations are found to be positively related to career development. Environmental factors such as family background factors, parental influences, and educational attainment were also found to be associated with youth career development. This implication can be tied to basic assumption (a) (p.41), which assumes the importance of interactions between the individual and his/her environments. The last issue that needs to be considered relative to ecological perspective is the impact of human system (the individual) on his/her own development. The influence of the macrosystem may be as pervasive as Bronfenbrenner 112 suggests it is. However, the power of the human variable may have the potential to modify the potential influence of these systems, at least from the findings of the study: the best single predictor for the final occupational attainment is youth achievement motivation. Although youth career development is conceptualized in this study as a product of interaction/transaction between the organism and the environment, it was found that the individual youth is the final enactor and decision-maker of his/her life-plans and what s/he wants to become. He or she, however, is influenced by the environment. This implication can be tied to basic assumptions (a) and (b) of the Ecosystem theory stated in Chapter two. These assumptions emphasize the capability and necessity of an individual to interact with the environmental systems and to be influenced by them. In summary, the following can be implied from the findings of the study: (1) Career development is one of the functions of the family. Both family structural variables and family process variables are important factors that contribute to ;youth career development. (2) The impact of the individual human system is important in this process. The study shows that the human is capable of interacting with the environmental input (both as an actor and reactor), and that the level of final output to the environment is determined by the human system. 113 (3) Career development of youth must be examined in its wholeness -- both spatial and temporal -- of interactions and interdependence. Implications for Future Research In examining an ecological model of youth occupational attainment, several alternatives might be considered for future research. One such alternative is a life-span approach to the study of career development. Although it may not be applicable to the research dealing with youth, future research focusing on a life-span ecological approach -- to see how careers develop later in life —- will provide strong, reliable, and valid information about how career aspiration is formed in early years, how they are achieved, and/or how they are changed. Other traits that influence fulfilment of aspirations should also be studied. With regard to family influence on this process, a distinction between the family of orientation and of procreation must be made; this aspect should be added along the temporal dimension. In examining the impact of the family system, the importance of the interactive variables should be noted. If the need for an emological model is as strong as implied, and if the need to look at all of interactive variables is as important as some family researchers contend, then the creation of interactive variables which carry the essence of 114 what is important to the career development of the children in the family is needed. For example, both the structural variables (e.g., parent’s educational and occupational status) and functional variables (e.g., parenting practices and values) of the family system in this study are found to have significant effects on youth occupational achievement. This points out the need to analyze the interactional patterns between parents and children according to the bidirectional nature of' 'the parent-child dyad. To accomplish this, tfiua use of more sophisticated statistical methods that can assess the bidirection between the variables are suggested. One possibility is the use of LISREL (Linear Structural Relations).1 One other factor that should be considered is that parental status also changes over the ,years. To date, parental status is permitted to shift during the career decision years. The use of traditional statistical methods that do not measure the changes over time does not capture the essence of the theory. 1The validity of the path analysis was predicted on a set of very restrictive assumptions, some of which are that: (1) the variables are measured without error; (2) the residuals are not intercorrelated; and (3) the causal flow is unidirectional (i.e., the causal relationship is closed.) As compared to this, LISREL is a very versatile approach that may be used for the analysis of causal models with multiple indicators of latent variables, measurement errors, correlated errors, or reciprocal causation (Pedhauzer, 1983). 115 The last issue related to the life-span approach centers around occupational and familial changes over historical time. The overarching sociocultural context is constantly changing; and in response the familial context, career development, and the links between the two also change. At a conceptual level, the impact of sociocultural change on career development has been recognized (e.g., Lyon, 1965; Vondracek and Lerner, 1982; Vondracek, Lerner, and Schulenberg, 1983), but has not been incorporated into the design of empirical research. The original research (H’ the present investigation spans the past two decades, during which numerous changes have occurred that may have altered the family context, and the career development (e.g., equal opportunity legislation, shifting sex—roles, and increased rate of maternal employment). As a result the generalizability and comparability of empirical findings to those of different historical times may be limited. Another alternative for future research is related to the amount (H’ variance explained by selected predictors. Findings from the present study as well as from other research indicated that a large portion of variability in occupational attainment process is still unexplained. Thus, the need to develop better measures for existing variables and to incorporate new variables is important. One area which needs additional research is that involving the scale 116 of measurement of the dependent variable (i.e., occupation). The definition of occupation is important to the study of occupational choice, because the definition affects empirical relationships and theory. Yet, occupation has not been clearly defined 'hi the professional literature. In particular, operational criteria for differentiating occupations are subjective and, undoubtedly, exhibit low reliability. In the present study, the scale of measurement was based on a prestige continuum (Reiss, 1961). However, a multidimensional scheme of classifying occupation would be more realistic. Viewing occupations as points in multidimensional space is a generalization of the standard sociological practice of assigning prestige scores to occupations thereby generating a one-dimensional space. Hotchkiss and his associates (1979) suggest that additional variables defining the multi-dimensions of occupations might include variables such as average income, public perceptions of the degree to which the occupation provides a community service, and/or the degree of job autonomy. Another area in which future research may be indicated is the incorporation of different systems in youth environment. The findings of this study indicate the need to include environments other than the ones studied. The model used in the present investigation accounted for approximately 40 percent of the variance of career development of low-income rural youth. Conversely, this 117 means that even larger portions of the variance (about 60 percents) are left unexplained. Such variables might include more dimensions of micro-, meso-, exo—, and macro- system environments than were investigated in the present study. The present study focused (Ml low-income southern youth. Future research would be indicated for other minority groups to compare the macrosystem differences among different social groups. Lastly, in terms of theory building, future qualitative research may be desirable in addition to quantitative research. A certain number of low-income youth faced with many disadvantages toward attainment nevertheless do succeed. Qualitative research, such as the use of in- depth interviews and case studies would be of much theoretical value in the study of this group of individuals. A full coverage of the dynamics of the process of occupational attainment requires numerous observations on the same individuals within each stage of the life cycle as well as between stages. Completing a life history for a single cohort, by definition, requires a lifetime to assemble. By the time the last panel of data is collected, many of the measurements would be obsolete. Consequently, it seems that the next important step in empirical research in this area is to increase the number of data banks with two or more panels of data within the "family" years, "schooling" years, and "job" years. It is possible that one 118 might assemble enough information from existing data sources to construct preliminary estimates of a path model covering family, schooling, and early adult job changes. To do so will require substantial time, care, staff and money and it certainly is beyond the capacity of one individual researcher. At this point in time, one thing seems clear: considerable empirical, methodological, and conceptual work remains before a thorough understanding of the socioeconomic life cycle is achieved. Implications for the Education of Early Adolescents Early adolescents need the opportunity to learn about a wide variety of occupations and training requirements for those occupations that will provide them with more options as they move through adolescence into the adult life. Educators of early adolescents need to include these opportunities and keep those career options open by informing the youth of the kinds of opportunities that are available in their community, and in the larger society. One finding of the present research is that the best single predictor for low-income, rural youth career attainment is youth achievement motivation. Another finding is that the level of youth occupational aspirations does not change over the years; however, the youth adjust (lower) their level of occupational expectation as they grow older. It is partly, if not entirely, society’s responsibility to remove those 119 obstacles that these youth perceive as a hindrance to achieving their goal, and help the youth in these groupings to convince themselves of their own ability/will to become the enactor of their earlier aspirations. Implications for Parent Education The findings of the present study indicate the importance of the family influence on career development. Parents need to be aware of the fact that they can make an impact on their children’s career choices, and achievement of children’s career aspirations. If it; is assumed that career development has much in common with other kinds of human development, the findings of the study as well as of a substantial body of research evidence indicate that parents must acknowledge that they have unique roles to play in the career development of their adolescent children. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Andrews, M., Bubolz, M., & Paolucci, B. An Ecological approach to the study of the family. Marriage and Family Review, 1980, 3, 39-49. Alexan der, K., & Eckland, 8. Sex differences in educational attainment process. American Sociological Review, 1974, i2, 668-682. Bachman, J., O’Mally, P., & Johnston, J. Youth in transition (Vol. 6). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, 1978. Becker, G. Human Capital. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1964. Bell, H. Matchingayouth and jobs: a study of occupational adjustment. Washington, D.C., American Council on Education. 1940. Blau, P. & Duncan, 0. The American occupational structure. New York: John Wiley and sons, Inc., 1967. Borus, M. Iamorrow’s works. Lexington, Mass: Lexington, 1983. Bowlby, l2., & Schriver, W. Academic ability and rates of return to vocational training. Indgstrial and Labor Relations Review, 1973, 26, 980-990. Bubolz, M., Eicher, J., & Sontag, M. The human ecosystem: A model. Jouraal of Home Economics, 1971, 11, 28-31. Bubolz, M., & Whiren, A. The family of handicapped: An ecological model for study and practice. Family Belatign§, 1984, 11, Bronfenbrenner, U. The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1979. 120 121 Brook, J., Whiteman, M., Lukeoff, I., & Gordon, TA. A maternal and adolescent expectations and aspirations as related to sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. The journal of Genetic Psychology, 1979, 115, 209-216. Chase, I. A comparison of men’s and women’s intergenerational mobility in the United States. American Sociological Review, 1979, 40, 483-505. Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F., & York, C. Eguality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966. Coleman, L. Nature and focus of the study. In Influences on occupational goals of young peoole in three southern subcultures (Southern Regional Research Project S-63). Greensboro: University of North Carolina, 1974. Cosby, A., & Charner, I. (Eds.) Education and work in rural America: The social context of early caareer decision and achievement. Houston: Stafford-Lowdon. Cosby, A., & Picou, J. Structural models and occupational aspirations: Black-white variations among deep-south adolescents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1973, 3, 1-14. Dweck, C. & Elliot, E. Achievement Motivation in P. Mussen (Ed.) Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4). New York: Wiley, 1983. Featherman, D., & Hauser, R. Sexual inequalities and socioeconomic scales in the study of occupational achievement. Sociological Methods and Research, 1971, 4, 403-422. Ferguson, C., & Gould, J. Mjproeponpmic theory. Homewood, Ill: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1975. Glenn, M., Ross, A., & Corder Tully, J. Patterns of intergenarational mobility of females through marriage. mer' oci lo i Re ' , 1978, 32A 683-699. Ginzberg, E., Ginsburg, S., Axelrad, S., & Herma, J. Occupational cnplga. New York: Columbia University Press, 1951. 122 Hall, L. The occupational choiceaprocess among low-incoma Southern cayouth: A longitudinal analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, 1979. Haller, A., Otto, L., Meier, R., & Ohlendorf, G. Level of occupational aspiration: An empirical analysis. American Sociological Review, 1974, 38, 113-121. Hershenson, D., & Roth, M. A decision process model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1966, 1;, 368-370. Hilton, T. Career decision-making. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1962, 9, 291-298. Holland, J. Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973. Holland, J. A psychological classification scheme for vocations and major fields. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1966, 1;, 278-288. Hotchkiss, L., Black, M., Campbell, R., & Garcia, G. Jr. Theories of occupational choice: A critical assessment of selected viewpoints. The National Center: for Research iri Vocational Education. The Ohio State University, 1979. Hout, M., & Morgan, W. Race and sex variations in the causes of the expected attainments of high school seniors. American Journal of Sgciologl. 1975, 81, 364-394. Jencks, C. Who gets aheaa? New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1979. Jochim, M. Strategies for survival. New York: Bruner/Mazel, 1981. Kaldor, 0., & Zytowski, D. A maximizing model of occupational decision-making. Eapspnpel and Guidance qurnal, 1969, 11, 781-788. Kandel, IL, & Lesser, G. Parental and peer influence on educational plans of adolescents. Amarjcap Sociological Review, 1969, 15, 213-223. Kenkel, W. factors aifecting the life plans of low-incoma rural youth. Paper presented at the cmnference of research committee on youth sociology. Deutsche Landjugend Akademie, Fredeburg, Germany, 1981. 123 Kenkel, W. Occupational saliency and age at marriage plans of low-income high school girls. Sociological Forum, 1980, 3, 62-74. Kenkel, W. & Gage, B. The restricted and gender-typed occupational aspirations of young women: Can they be modified? Family Relations, 1983, di 129-138. Krumboltz, J., Mitchell, A., & Jones, G. A social learning theory of career selection. Counseling Psychologist, 1976, 6, 71-80. Kuvlesky, W., & Bealer, R. A clarification of the concept occupational choice. Rural Sociology, 1966, 31, 265- 276. Leigh, G., & Peterson, G. Adolescents in families. Chicago, Il: South-western Publishing Co., 1986. Lyon, R. Beyond the conventional career: some speculations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1965, 12» 153-158. McClendon, M. The occupational status attainment process of males and females. American Sociological Review, 1976, 41, 52-64. Mitchell, A., Jones, G., & Krumboltz, J. (Eds.) A social laarning theory of career decision making. Palo Alto: American Institute for Research, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, The National Institute of Education, 1975. Mitchell, T., & Beacon, L. Expectancy theory, decision theory, and occupational preference and choice. Technical report. Seattle: Washington University, 1975. Nie, N., Hull, C., Jenkins, J., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, 0. Statistical package for the social science. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1975. Osborn, M. The impact of differing parental educational level on the educational achievement, attitude, aspirations, and expectations of the child. Jpprnal f uca l Res r h, 1971, 65, 163-167. Otto, L., & Haller, A. Evidence for a social psychological view of the status attainment process: Four studies compared. Social Forces, 1979, 51» 887-914. Parsons, F. Choosing a vocation. New York: Acathon Press, Inc., 1967. 124 Pedhauzer, E. Multiple regression in behavioral research. (Second Ed.) Holt, Reinhart and Winston Publishing Co., 1982. Peters, 0., Peterson, G., & Southworth, L. The significant others of Appalachian youth. Paper presented at the second annual Appalachian conference on children and families, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tenn., June 1981. Porter, J. Race, socialization, and mobility in educational and early occupational attainment. Amarican Sociological Review, 1974, 33, 303-316. Portes, A., & Wilson, K. Black-white difference in educational attainment. American c$ociological Review, 1976, 33, 414-431. Proctor, C. Methodology for the baseline study. In Influences on OCCUpational goals of young pepple in three southern subcultures, (Southern Regional Research Project S-63). Greensboro: University of North Carolina, 1974. Rehberg, R., & Hotchkiss, L. Educational decision makers: The social mobility. Sociology of Education, 1972, 43, 339-361. Reiss, A., Duncan, 0., Watt, P., & North, C. c i and social status. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. Schiamberg, L. Human devslooment. (Second Ed.) New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1982. Schulenberg, J., Vondracek, F., & Crouter, A. The influence of the family on vocational development. Jpgrna! pf Marriage and the Family, 1984, 1, 129-143. Sewell, W., Haller, A., & Ohlendorf, G. The educational and early occupational attainment process: Replications and revisions. Amaricap Spcjplpgical Review, 1970, 33, 1014-1027. Sewell, W., Haller, A., & Portes, A. The educational and early occupational attainment process. Amarican Sociplpgical Review, 1969, 33, 82-92. Sewell, W., & Hauser, R. Educatipp, pccupatipn, and aarnipgs. New York: Academic Press, 1975. 125 Sewell, W. Wisconsin longitudinal study of social and psychological factors in aspirations and achievements. In Research in sociology of education and socialization (Vol. 1), edited by A. Kerckhoff, 55-59. Greenwich, Conn.: Jai Press, 1980. Shapiro, 0., & Crowley, J. Aspirations and expectations of youth 'hi the United States: Part 2. Employment activity. Youth and society, 1982, 31, 30-58. Shoffner, S. Respondent location procedures in a longitudinal study: Career projections aoo attainments of low-income youth: Changes over timo. Paper presented at the second annual Appalachian conference on children and families, Knoxville, Tenn., June 1981. Spitz, G., & Waite, L. Labor force and work attitudes: Young women’s early experience. Sociology of Work and Occupation, 1980, 1, 3-32. Stroupe, A. A ten-year analysis of the infloance of significant others on future plans of low-income southern _youth. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Southern Carolina at Greensboro, 1980. Super, D. Vocational development. New York: American Book-Stratford Press, Inc., 1957. Super, 0. A theory of vocational develOpment. The Americap Psychologist, 1953, 3, 185-190. Suter, L., & Miller, A. Income differences between men and career women. .Americap Journal of Sociology, 1973, 13, 962-974. Taylor, P., & Glenn, N. The utility of education and attractiveness for female status attainment through marriage. merican Sociological Review, 1976, 4_1_, 484-498. Thomas, ‘1“, & Falk, W. Career attitudes and achievement. In Education and work in ruLal America: The social context of early career decision and achievement, edited by Cosby, A., & Charner, 1. Houston: Strafford-Lowdon, 1978. Thurow, L. Investment in human capital. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1970. 126 Tittle, C. Careers and family: Sex roles and adolescent life plans. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1981. Treas, J. Differential achievement: Race, sex, and jobs. Sociology and Social Research, 1978, 33, 387-400. Treiman, D., & Terrell, K. Sex and the process of status attainment: A comparison of working women and men. American Sociological Review, 1975, 33, 174-200. Turner, E. The factors influencing the occu ational aspirations of low-income Southern youth: A longitudinal study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of' North Carolina at Greensboro, 1983. Tyree, A., & Treas, J. The occupational and marriage mobility of women. American Sociological Roview, 1974, 39, 293-302. Vondracek, F., & Lerner, R. Vocational role development in adolescence. In B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of developmental psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1982. Vondracek, F., Lerner, R., & Schulenberg, J. The concept of development in vocational theory and intervention. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1983, 33, 179-202. Vroom, V. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964. Williams, T. Educational aspirations: Longitudinal evidence on their development in Canadian youth. Sociology of Education, 1972, i3, 107-133. Williams, T. Educational ambition: Teachers and students. Sociology of Education, 1975, i3, 432-456. 127 APPENDIX A VARIABLES BY CONCEPTUAL CATEGORY 128 Variables By Conceptual Category Category 1969 1975 1979 u—u—u—u—u—c—m—__H—_m—fl_fl——————————u——___—“__— 1. Family Background Factors -Education of Parentszfathers mothers -Occupation of the breadwinner (mothers’ if not fathers’) -Mother’s social "participation" score ><><><>< 2. Significant Others (Parenting Factors) a) Mother’s achievement orientation -mother’s score on achievement values X b) Mother’s child rearing value orientation -"mother wants her child to have character" X -"mother emphasizes outgoing child" X c) Mother’s status projections for child -mean score of mother’s aspirations and expectations for child’s education X -mean score of mother’s aspirations and expectations for child’s job plans X d) Perception of mother’s affective behavior -child’s perception of mother’s puniching behavior X -child’s perception of mother’s demanding behavior X -child’s perception of mother’s loving behavior X 3. Child Characteristics -Mental ability (IQ) -Self-concept -Child’s academic motivation (includes "liking" school) XXX 4. Significant Others -Teachers, relatives, friends (adults and peers), and/or others (preachers, neighbors etc.) X 129 (cont’d) 5. Achievement Motivation -educational aspirations and expectations -occupational aspirations and expectaions 6. Educational Attainment 7. Occupational attainment >< ><><><>< APPENDIX B STUDENT SURVEY FORM BASELINE QUESTIONNAIRE “.0co cosu ones xuozo >05 :0». so» can: o>nn anode :0» non uo ucux on» usage :0» nu“: voxaau o>¢n as) camoom 0:» mm ~a: 30am sumo an xuono d unm ~ma 30am :0» :05) «>0: Haw: Naaoou so» scan» :0» on nan uo Jocx u.cov we ovuaaou :nwcwu .m #0020» oven» a on on uca Aoonun now: nnwcwu . v aoonuu swan n»w:wu .n goonUn ovnuu a 0» cm can ounum sum nmwcwu .n ouaum nun sawed“ .a non» you 0» aoonun ad on 0» o>an so yawn uca: UH «non no ocax » on now 30: .n 1130 scum so» can) u>un ca 5 an oxwa Naammu :0» case) nan uo ucwx yon) .vuucaa so» now xca omoonu vasou :0» un .a «Hausa . uca - fin: Iona so» can) o>an. o: .no» .no» .n l i .w .a unmaa so» new uo vcwx non: usonu unuaozu uu>o so» o>a= “accruauuoaxm uca ncowuac_um< _oco_uanauuov JOOmUm 02¢ xmoz mow mz can fined use nodumuau sumo noun ad“) H, .uuuaucn mean: can ucowu 0: ans ouonu uca umou - man «a nick awouuuu uaona nvcwauou use» zocx cu oxwa oasoa uca .ncoaa ounuau ~50» uaond veanuoEOn uao mcavcwu cw voumououcw cum 0: umaa manna: unMHM «can: no: em nun: no» .n IIIII o: .A .aa «.uonuoanouu no. unnuon uaoa sud) o>wa so» on .p couanOu .m co>oao .n coouuqnu_ .m IIIII cou .~ IIIII .oa IIIII 0303» .vll and: ..— «no» and due 30: .o nonsnz ococmoaua .n .oanwnnom mu names: can uoouuu no noon o>wmv nuouvv< .v 0612 .uucouam .n auao .u .m iIIII aon .a .« ovnuu aoonum ououm .u 06¢: .a ”cowuq5co»c~ ucaocmxuunv m7mm5h~ .30» 09 Emma mzuwm 84:8 *43 ”:8 2H 8 DO» 8243 m3 .ummzmzmm rumam um any «ad: cows: numauca 050» no cadudvua any uca uaouxo >o=uu as» ea we»: no: u« no vounomaa xwvcoanu uwzu ca audacCOMuaoau one. .aoocuu 05000 a00u 50» 30: 06 naaou anon uanu ~030c0 mum x0050 0:0 uu vaou M an unvaououn nun. Umva .JOO:Um FDOQ< MUZHAth .HH Acoyuo>_uoz u_eou~u<..cou_uv c~ua~ mam»— 0: .n 0Huuqa 0 .00» .~ uca 0 .00» .H -oocoa no~n wc~za~c~u cocoon u50 oc~mmo~v 05000 nuco~0n ~50» ou voxaau ~0>0 50» 0>0a .wa .co.-u=uu uaooa mucoean nu_3 ocwx_~». a. vm»_ nnchu 08 u0~ u.50) »0:u .m . nn~c~u u.cu~u ~ uuzuou 05:03 >05» .. lull: 0~0u u.:oo »0nu .n 1; nnwcwu H ~0£ua~ 0450) »0zu .~ IIIII ”wt znwcwu u un~05« »0zu .« «#0050» swan ucacnwcwu ~50» 05000 A00u 0u00~0m ~50» 00 )0: uuoHHoo enuc- .n 0meaou uo n~00» N ~0 a .o aoocUn 000~u 0 0» cu 0cm Hoocun cud: snacwu .m Aoozuu zo~n snac- .v . doonon no~z uc~cmac~u «0 voouac~ aoonu. ovauu a o» om .n “00:00 cud: no n~00» N ~0 A .~ ouauu no. .~ fiaoonon cw co 0» 50» 0xwa ”H503 nuco~0m ~50» xcunu 5o» 00 ~0u Jo: 0:0 0: .o . ~0:3. ~0nuo .a . avax ~0zuo .a ~onna~05 ~0 uc0-u u~500 .s ~0cuou~n .w ~0cuoou .n 0>~u0~0~ ~0nuocn .0 ~0un~n ~0 ~0zuo~n ~00a0 .n ~0cu0u .N uunuoe .a .hH .wd .400200 c« 0m va5osu 50» ~0u 30: 05000 50» nu~3 voxanu 0>an on) camoom 0a» uo 2000 »n x0020 0 05» 0o0a~00 gnacau 0mmwaou no 0~00» n ~o « #00200 000~u 0 0» 00 0:0 #00200 swan gnacwu aoonuu now: gn~c- Hoono. zu~s ocannwcwu uo vuuuncw #00500 000~u 0 cu om aoonun swan no 0~00» n ~o « oven» a». .h .0 .n .v ill ll ~Hoonun cu cu «a»: N-00~ 50» xcanu 50» on ~0u 30: owoaaou gn~c- 0mMHa00 uo «~00» N ~0 a #00200 000~u 0 on 00 can aoonuu now: nnwcwu ~oozua saw: zn~c- aoonon cud: ocunnwcwu uo amounca aoonou 0v-u 0 0a on #00500 saw: no n~00» ~ ~0 a 000~m nun 0:0 0: . «0:3. ~0nuo noun ~0nu0 ~oncu~0c ~0 vcou~u ua500 ~02000~n ~0cuaou 0>wu0~0~ ~0nuoca ~0un~0 ~0 ~0nuo~n ~00~0 ~0nuau ~0nu00 ..000 »«co x0050. .h .o .n .v .n .N .A II !| ~naoonuu cu om 0» 0x- 50» va503 ~0u )0: .00uono ~50» can 50» uu .n .N .u 0~5u5u ~50» u5on0 50» cu ucou~omEA 0~OB nu 00~>va . 0:0 0: . ~023. ~0zuo nuwx ~0suo ~onsu~0c ~0 vcoq~u uaavq ~0zuuo~o ~0n000u 0>~00~0~ ~0zuoc0 ~0un~n ~0 ~0suoun ~00H0 ~0nu0u ~0zuOI .o .o .- .h .0 .n .v .n .N .A Hllllll ~0coaa 000:3 .n« .v« .na .NH 132 050>~0: ~0>0 »Hv~02 050>~02 :0~u0 an H ~00~ 000H0 unaHu 02~ 0~0H02 n-0m0~ m:~>~m 0xHH ~.:ov anaHu 02~ 0~0u02 0-omo~ 02H>Hu oxHH xuoa H002ua »a 00 cu »- x0H0~ 0:0 ~u0~ ~02~0~ 0H503 H .quu I: H :02: oeuu no 00H~0m 0600 02~ ~0>0 n~:000~m ~0HH0£n H0~0>0n 08 »52 802~ 0>02 ~:0mu~a 0H2 0:0 03 >52 n~:0~0n »a 0>02 0:0 n~00» 03~ ~0 0:0 ~H03 ~02~0~ oHaoJ H :Onuon ~02~0 0:0 ~05» ~0:H000 »0Ha oedu £00~ 0 »0Hu ~02~0~ 0H503 H 0E0: 02~ ~5020 0H 0:0»~0>0 0~02) omHo 0:0»:0 :02~ ~0-02 a.H 0~023 030m 0 ucH2~080w :~00H UH503 H 0~023 nofldm 00600 :5u :~00H ~02~a~ 0H503 H 00 :00 H 0~5n a.H 20H23 00 0~ 0H2: on ~0: ~20Ha H ~02~ 020“ HH00»3 »n mcHx~oa n~02~0 2~HJ 02Hx~03 0" I'll .H 0 0~0u0n .nn 0“ I .H H .un I“ III .H .Hn .« .H .on 0" III .H .on ON I .H ~0u0~u H .mn IN I .H .5" .H .H ~0u0~a H .mn ON l .H ~0H0~a H .mu 202.03. cc-m~ «Tm»— .H00u 50» 302 0HH0~ ~00» ~02~ ~030:: 0:0 20020 0:: - 000~ H 00 ~2060~0~0 20:0 000: .monummao q0: .n ~0>0 »Hu~02 .0 00IH~0300 .n 083 02~ H0 ~03 .n n»03H0 .H NH 0600 0H50) H .H002un 0~ ucHaoo ~5020 »03 »l 002 H HH ~0>0: .n ~0>0 »Hn~02 .v 00EH~0300 .n 05~ 02~ H0 ~00.- .N H n»03H0 . ~0-02 on 0~ 0~02 »- H .0xHH ~.:oo H 000~m 0 ~0m H :02: ~0>0: .m ~0>0 »Hv-2 .v 008H~0eon .n 03H~ 02~ H0 ~00! .H n»03H0 .H ~H 20H2HH H .x~030Eo2 n5 00>Hu ~02000~ 02~ 2023 ~0>0: .n ~0>0 »Hu~02 .v 200: 0 00:0 usonu .n 200) 0 002H~ 00~2~ ~0 0:~ .H »00 »~0>0 ~5020 .H Ill 0302 u: 000~ ~0 »05~0 H ~0>02 . ~0>0 »Hu~02 . 006H~0300 . 0.13 05 no ~00: . 0»03H0 .H HIH NH'U‘! 0000~m 000m ~00 0~ »- xHH00~ H ~0>0: .m ~0>0 »Hu~02 .v noawuoeou .n 08H~ 05 no ~00: .H n»0)H0 .H HH x~03 H0020: »l :« 00~n0~0~2H a: H .HHH .vN .nn .NN .HN .on .2. 1133 000H 2050 .0 000~ o~uu~H - .v 0500 02~ ~5020 .n 0~0§ 0H-HH 0 .H 0~0§ 2050 .H HH ~000 03~ ~0 ~00» 0 0H0 020 :02~ 0~0§ HH00~50» ~0H 002H2~ 00H000 50» ~0H 020 0000 .00 ~0>0: .n ~0>0 »H0~02 .v 00HH~0500 .n 0EH~ 02~ no ~00I .N 0»03H0 .H HH .05 02H20H25a Ho 000~02H .08 2~H3 0:0000~ ~o 02H0an0 020 06 cu 02H0~ 020 0xHH ~.:0000 020 02H2~0800 00 H :02: .00 ~0>0: .n ~0>0 »H0~02 .v . 00aH~0800 .n 02H~ 02~ H0 ~00§ .N 0»03H0 .H 0HH0~ 020 .06 ~0H 00H5~ 00x06 ~0 002H2~ 000H00v 020 :02: ..00 ~0>02 .n ~0>0 »Hc~02 .0 00530200 .n 1 0aH~ 02~ no ~006 .H 0»03H0 .H .3022 ~.:00 H HH..»2J 0a 0HH0~ 020 0a 0020H:5m 020 :02: .m0 Am:_:voep oucuucuaoucg 0:0 :o_~00_::sEou go mocooo n.002uo: mo co.~nuueu: n.o__2uV 60—00m Lou—my 00-n0 mZmH~ .~02~oa ~50» 0xHH ~0oa 0H x:H2~ 50» 20H2: ~03020 02~ 20020 0:0 ~H 000~ H 00 ~:0E0~0~0 2000 0002 .:0~0HH20 ~H02~ 0~030~ ~00 0~02~0§ ~02~ 0»03 ~:0~0Hqu ~5on0 0~0 0:0H~0050 0:H30HHou 029 .zuzaqqu az< mmuxkox .>H »H0:0H~H 0~0 023 :0~0HH20 ~02~0 .H H00200 :H HHO: 00 023 :0~0HH20 ~02~0 .H 0~0:-0uox~03 00 000020 0H503 H .00 . 00 :00 H 0~50 ~0: I.H 0:0 0~02 0~0 ~02~ 002H2~ 00 .u 00 :00 H 30:: H 00:13 H0505 00 :— 0~ ~0u0~n H .0302 ~0 0H02 0~ 00:H2~ 00 H :02: 0~02~o 02~ HH0 ~003H0 :02~ ~0-02 00: H .n 2~03 02~ 00 ~02~0:0 0:0 00 0000 00 HH0 0~03 0~2005~0 02~ .H 20H23 :« 00000H0 ~0u0~a H 0~0a»0Ha »l 002» ~0-0n 205! .« 0~0a»0Ha »l 00 0000 00 .H :0 H :02: 0:00 0 02H»0Ha 02HH H x0H0~ .H 0:H2~0600 00 cu 302 02H2~00H 08H~ »a 0:000 .H o~ 0xHH 0H503 H 0002HHH 050H~00 0 00~H ~0-02 0:H-00 0~03 H uH 000»0Hn ~02~0 H0~0>00 .n ~0»0Hn ~02~0 0:0 .H ~0:H000 »0Ha H :02: 0~0l 0-000 »0n:0 H 0~:005~0 ~02~0 :02~ 0~0§ .H 0~:005~0 ~02~0 :02~ 000H .H .00500Hv ~0 0:0H~0050 ~03020. 000H0 :« 2H0~ H l H00200 0~ 2002 ~00 0~ 00H0 ~02 .H H00200 0~ 200A ~00 0~ o0H0 .H :0 H 20H~000> ~0afi50 ~0~H< 2H3 0~ 0>0H H .H 000H 0~ 0~02 H .H 0800 0 »0Hn H :02: v0~02 050002 H .H 0~00 - 0:~00 »on:0 H .H non 0 00 :00 H 0~50 80 H :02: 0:H::HJ :H 00~00~0~2H 0~0§ .H 0:H::HJ :H :02~ :5u 0:H>02 2H 00~00~0~2H 0~OI .H a0 H -000 ~0 0800 0 :« 0:~»0Hn 30 H :02: .n0 .Nv .H0 .00 .mn .on .hn .wn .nn .vn 134 ~0>0: ~0>0 »Hv~02 . 006H~0800 0aH~ 02~ «0 ~00& 0»03H0 Hll HH00»E Ho 0~00 0x0~ ~0::00 H ~02~ 0H0~H0 0H 0:0 00H-03 02m . ~0>0: ~0>0 »H0~02 00§H~0300 0EH~ 02~ Ho ~00: 0»03H0 00Hn50- 0>02 H :02: 06 0mH02 0:0 0000 H00H 06 ~0>0: ~0>0 »H0~02 00EH~0500 05H~ 02~ «0 ~00: 0»03H0 lllll 06 2~HJ 02 cu »ma02 0H 02m ~0>0: ~0>0 »Hv~02 006H~0600 02~ H0 ~00: 0»0:H0 0EH~ 0>020n ~02 00 H :02: »mm02:5 0:0 ~0ma5 02 cu ~0>02 ~0>0 »Hv~02 006H~0EO0 02~ «0 ~00: 0»0:H0 06H~ Ill 0: 0020Hc5m 020 :02) ~H0H 0H 02m ~0>0: H050 »Hu~02 003H~0500 08H~ 02~ Ho ~00§ 0»0>H0 0:H2~»:0 ~00: 0~2H ~02 2H0~ HI :00 H .mm Ohm .mm .mm .vm ~0>0: ~0>0 »H0~02 00§H~0500 00H~ 02» Ho ~00: 0»03H0 llll 00 H 0:H2~»~0>0 :0 v~02 x~03 0B 0020: 02m ~0>0: ~0>0 »H0~02 008H~0800 00H~ 02~ H0 ~00: 0»03H0 .n .v .n .N .H HH 00:0H~u »a 2~HJ »0Hm ~0 0~0230300 00 cu ~:0: H :02) ~0~HH :0H00H:~0a ~02 ~00 0~ 0>02 H ~02~ 0»00 02m ~0>0: ~0>0 »H0~02 00BH~0000 0aH~ 02~ H0 ~00! 0»03H0 .HH03 0000 0:H2~»~0>0 ~02~ 2~H3 00:00 020 ~0>0: ~0>0 »Hu~02 005H~0£00 06H~ 02~ H0 ~00: 0»0JH0 .n .v .n .u .H 0:w2~»:0 ~5020 ~02 0~ 2H0~ Aacw2u_:5a 0~50 0200 cu 0n .0:H~ ~0~HH 02~ ~0H 000H00600 00 H :02: Ill :00 H .nm .0m 0:. .mc_ucaaou .0:.>o—v 202.2u 02~ »n 00>m0000: 00 Lo_>020o 0.:02uoxv Aocwnccovuuuao :o_)020m ~:~:0: 00:20:2200200nv 022H2~ 020 ~02: ~0-0a 0: ~20: H ~02: 00 :00 H ~:03 H ~02) .uH ~5020 xH0~ 0) 0:000000 02~ 0000 »HH0505 020 ~52 .~H ~5020 2H0~ 03 00 0~ ~02: 0: 0HH0~ ~05“ 020 00 cu ~00 »HH0505 H ~52 .0 .n .N .H 00-3 90: Ill! «~02~0: ~50» 0:0 50» :003~02 000H00o 00:H2~ ~00: 0~0 30: 2135 ~050: .0 .II ~050 »H0~02 .v IIIII 00:H~0800 .n . 5EH~ 522 no ~50: .H IIIII 0»0JH0 .H HH00»B 050202.~0: 00 H :02: ..50» 2~H3 00 0~ 0~oa 0:H2~»:0 0502 02 ~20: ~.:00 H. .0: 0HH0~ 02m ~050: .n ~050 »Hv~02 .v 00BH~0800 .n 08H~ 02~ H0 ~00: .H 0»03H0 .H »2: 0:H0me0 020 .05 0020H25a 020 :02: ~050: .n ~050 »Hu~02 .v 00aH~0500 .n 0:H~ 02~ uo ~00: .H 0»03H0 .H 0: 20Hc5m 0~ 0~02 ~H nvcHH 02m ~050: .n ~050 »Hu~02 .0 00EH~0£00 .n I 0aH~ 02~ Ho ~00: .H 0»05H0 .H H00200 :H 0000~0 0000 »~05 ~00 ~05: H ~02~.0a 0HHO~ 02m ~050: .n ~050 »Hu~02 .0 00BH~0800 .n. 0EH~ 02~ 00 ~00: .H 0»05H0 .H 0602 02 0H5020 H :02) »H~00x0 0: 0HH0~ 02m ~050: .0 ~050 »20~02 .v 00aH~0600 .n 0£H~ 02~ H0 ~00§ .n 0»0:H0 .H 0: 0~ :0uu02 ~20H: 02H2~0600 0050002 0:50~0 ~00:05 ~o E00~ 2.:00 H 0: 0HH0~ 02m .H0 .00 .00 .00 .00 ~050: ~050 »Huu02 000H~0000 0&3 02~ 00 ~00.- 0»03H0 ~02 000: H :02) 05 ~00 0~02~ 0H 020 ~02~ ~050: ~050 »Hv~02 056-0¢00 00H~ 02~ «0 ~00: 0»0:H0 0Hmoon ~02~0 0~ 0a ~5020 00:H2~ 00H: ~050: ~050 »Hu~02 005H~0300 oadu 02~ 00 ~00! 0»0JH0 002 :0 H :02: 0030200 H002 0a ~050: ~050 »H0~02 00aH~0300 08H~ 02~ no ~00! 0»03H0 .0 .v .n .H N H .0 .v .n .~ .H .4 0 C 00 0»00 02m .0 .0 .n .N .H 0020: 02m .0 .0 .n .N .H »2J 0:H0me0 020 ~02 ~0H 0:H2~0300 00 0~ 0502 H :02: ~050: ~050 »Hu~02 00BH~0800 0BH~ 02~ 00 ~00: 0»03H0 002 :0 H :02) »000 H20 0: ~050: ~050 »H0~02 000H~0600 oaHu 02~ Ho ~00§ 0»03H0 :0~0HH20 ~02~0 :02~ ~0-02 00 cu 0502 H ~02~ 00 ~050: ~050 »H0~02 00BH~0000 0aH~ 02~ uo ~00: 0»03H0 .n .0 .n .N .H auoH can .H uH0n»I ~0u 02H2~ 0H-HH 0600 »52 Du ~20: H :02: »0:03 »6 0:000 H 302 »H~00x0 30:2 0~ 0~:0) 02m .00 .00 .00 .N0 .H0 .00 136 00200 2~03 >0Ha 08 000> 0 000> 0 0 0050: 00030 00 00:0 >H:0 2~:0: 0 00:0 0:020 0005 0 00:0 0:020 >00 >0050 ~0oaH0 HH 0: 00H: 00 02:000 020 0050: 00030 00 00:0 >H:0 20:03 0 00:0 0:020 0005 0 00:0 ~502- >00 >0050 ~005H0 .0 .0 .n ..N .H 00:H2~ 00 cu 0E 0:0HH00 00002 0:0 0! 000~000 02m 000> 0 00 00 020H H 00:020 00 000> 0 000> 0 0:H-0H 0050: 00030 00 00:0 >H:0 20:0: 0 00:0 0:020 0003 0 00:0 0:020 >00 >0050 ~000H0 0002202 >6 2~wz 0a 0050: 00030 00 00:0 >H:0 20:05 0 00:0 0:020 0003 0 00:0 0:020 >00 >0050 ~00aH0 0050: 00030 00 00:0 >H:o nucos 0 00:0 ~0020 x00) 0 00:0 0:020 >00 >0050 ~000H0 002 000 000500 00 00 00:0000 :30 00 0: 000> 0 0i 2~H3 00000 0:0 02H0J 0:0000Hm :0 .0050: 0005~ 00 00:0 >H:o 20:0: 0 00:0 0:020 0003 0 00:0 ~002- >00 >0050 ~00¢H0 .0 .0 .n .u .H :000H020 ~0: >2 0: 00:00:50 020. .00 .00 .no .Na .Ho .00 . 0050: 000> 0 00030 00 00:0 >H:0 2~:00 0 00:0 0:020 0003 0 00:0 05020 >00 >0050 ~008H0 .0 .0 .n .N .H 0003 00000 00 00 0:020: >2 0: 00:00:20 020 0050: 000> 0 00050 00 00:0 >H:0 20:0: 0 00:0 0:020 100) 0 00:0 0:020 >00 >0050 ~006H0 0050: 000> 0 00050 00 00:0 >H:0 20:0: 0 00:0 0:020 0005 0 00:0 0:020 >00 >0050 ~002H0 00 H c020 000002 050202 :000Hw2u 00200 ~02~ 06 0050: 000> 0 00030 00 00:0 >H:0 20:0: 0 00:0 0:020 000) 0 00:0 0:020 >00 >0050 ~008H0 :000H 0» 0:0) H 00:020 0: 0020000 020 0050: 000> 0 00030 00 00:0 >H:0 20:0: 0 00:0 0:020 100: 0 00:0 0:020 >00 >0050 0006H0 l l 6000 02~ 00 ~00 06 0:00:00 >2 0: 0020Hcam 02m 0050: 0050 >H0002 00EH00200 0:00 0:0 00 ~00: 0>0JH0 0000 0:H2~0:00 00 H :0:5 0: o~ 00:020 00H: 0050: 0050 >H0002 008000600 uaHu 02~ 00 ~00: 0>03H0 .0 .0 0a 00 0000 >005 0H 00200: >: .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 137 can» ozu no HH- oenu «nu no unoa can» on» no use: couuo >no> no: HH. an ac: «EH» on» «0 HH- oawu on» no unoa 06H» on» «a neon cuuuo >no> no: HHa an ac: 3233 5 n .o>oHHon so» can: van .aom HHou unusuo non) no: .uHonnooa noono Huou HHHoon :0» so: «30:» non» nuanca «an .50» on anon .nnozac- .hqummao» Baom‘ mozHAmwh xuonu can ya voon H «G ucoaouaun coco ovum «Evo- uonu >03 Gnu cH coHunoov non. nuanc< moon: on: uann o: ono onoza .wa .mm .> Ampaum naoocou-n_om uu.mn_49 no>oc noo» a 00H)» no coco xaco zucoa a 00:0 noon. 100) o coco uaona yon >no>o umOEHo op—-mo Mvmk_ HIH Una» no mason as» vcaono aHon ca 06 mucus 02m no>oc now» a OOHJu no coco >Hco nucoa a «one usono xoo) a ouco upon: >ov >no>o unoaHo .m .v .n .N .H l l mass nocwzu oano>au >6 mcwxou an on noznwcaa onm no>oc nun» - 00H)» no ouco cho cocoa a 00:0 agon- xoo) o coco noon. >16 >no>o unoaao can an H u« as an: no xenon HHH) uca .n .v .n .u .H Ill axon 0cm .vm .nm .Nm unuucs no: on H can) xnoa Hoonou MO>UB . now» a ouHJu no coco >Hco sauce 1 00:0 usage goo) a 90:0 uaoao >nv >no>o uuoeHo 08 um nHHo» uca won an H on no>oc nae» a now)» no coco haco cocoa - coco noon: £003 a mono noon. you >no>o unoaHa no>oc nuoa o ouH3u no coco >Hco nucoa a 00:0 noon. x00) a mono anon. xnv >no>o unoaHo lHH ocHnuUEOn ocean a: sun: as «nan: onm anuo van ou on unqucon an on nonnacan can no>oc non» o ounau no coco >Hco zucoa a 00:0 anon- xoo) a 00:0 noon- auo ano>o uuoaao nonno voom CH nmcHnu :30 >3 aoox on on no>oc nun» a cod)» no oooo cho zucoa a 00:0 noon. x00: a 00:0 noon- >av >no>o unoBHo .n «uca: can .n .v .n .N .H HI on now: ocwanu «acne. onm no>oc nae» c.0043u no coco uHco coco noon- xoo) o ouco noon. >av >no>o uaoaao hone. xHHoon H nmcwnu av 06 ucHuuoH no: an on nonnwcsn 02% .HQ .oa .ma .5. 1:38 oanu on» no an. .m. can» on» no one: .q eEHu on» no eeoe .n couuo >ne> uoc .n HHe yo yo: .H .muooc .anunuo «0 gang» n. Hanusosogu a. n eEHu one no HHe .m 05H» ecu uo unoa .v eEHu ecu no eaoe .n ceuuo >ne> no: .N HHe no no: .H lllll Hauneezo Ea H eEHu on» «0 HHe .m 06H» ecu uo ueoa .v eEau en» no eEoe .n ceuuo >ne> no: .N HHe an ac: .H Ill .nnenuo cuHJ HHeJ xnoa H. e>wueneaoou ad H eawu es» no HHe .n eEHu on» we once .v eEHu on» no eEOe .n oeuuo >ne> uoc .n HHe ue uoc .H can» as» no an. .n eaHu enu uo anon .e eaHu ecu uo eEoe .n :euuo mne> uoc .H HHe ue no: .H eEHu enu no HHe .n eeHu ecu no ueoa .v eEHu ecu no eeon .n :euuo >ne> uo: .n HHe u- no: .H .moa .boa .moa .mOH .vOH esHu ecu no HH- eeHu ecu no uaoa eaHu ecu no 060- ceuuo >ne> no: HHe an no: eaHu ecu no HHe eaHu ecu «0 once eaHu en» no eeoe ceuuo >ne> no: HHe us no: .ea cH eucooHHcoo no suHeu e>en eHmoem. veueanu an H eaHu ecu no HHe eanu ecu «a neon eSHu ecu uo eeoe ceuuo >ne> no: HHe an no: .n .v .n .N .H .oxnn unocuo you» noonoao. an n. unnauxnn an n eaHu ecu «0 HHe eeHu ecu Ho neon eBHu ecu no 060. ceuuo >ne> no: HHe no you .m .v .Hsunuanu. unecon an H eaHu en» no HHe eenu ecu no neon eaHu en» no eeo. ceuuo Hne> no: HHe ue uoc .nooemenaoo .oHonp e>enn no H eaHu ecu «0 HH- eaHu ecu no anon eeHu en» «0 eeoe ceuuo >ne> no: HHe an no: .«ou .HOH .OOH .oa 1139 eEHu ecu Ho HHe .n OEHu Gnu no quE .v eEHu ecu «0 e60. .n ceuuo >ne> uoc .H HHe ue uoc .H lllll .unn .unu; a used. Monaco; a. n .onc eaHu ecu «0 HHe .m eEHu ecu Ho unos .v eEHu ecu no esoe .n ceuuo >ne> uoc .N HHe ue uoc .H HI coeHo an H .mHH eaHu ecu «0 HHe .n eeHu ecu uo ueoa .v eaHu ecu no eaoe .n ceuuo *ne> uoc .N HHe ue uoc .H .azu. dungeon :4 n eaHu ecu no HHe .n eaHu ecu no unoe .v eEHu ecu no e30. .n ceuno ane> uoc .N HHe ue uoc .H lllll euncom an H eBHu ecu «0 HHe .m can» ecu no uno- .. eaHu ecu no eloe .n ceuuo >ne> uoc .N HHe ue uoc .H .oHou an H es ov H .Hauwuau. uceHveno :1 H eaHu ecu Ho HHe .m eaHu ecu no ueoa .v eeHu ecu uo eEOe .n ceuuo Hne> uoc .H HHe ue uoc .H .e>ec u.cov no» ocucu toad» e>ac enecuo enoeuec unnc .naoH>ce. eeoHeen Be H eaHu ecu «0 HHe .n eEHu ecu no ueOI .v eEHu ecu no eIOe .n ceuuo >ne> uoc .N HHe ue uoc .H enceunaou ue H eaHu ecu «0 HHe .n eaHu ecu no ueOl .v eaHu ecu uo eaOe .n ceuuo >ne> uoc .u HHe ue uoc .H .eHaoem ueOl xc vexHHv neHamon an H .vHH .nHH .NHH .HHH .OHH .QOH APPENDIX c MOTHER SURVEY FORM BASELINE QUESTIONNAIRE1 1The questionnaire in this appendix appear as they were used in the study except for the addition of some phrases which name the vaira'lbes being measured and the source of the scale or items. These phrases are printed in italics (script styie). 141) BASELINE PHASE MOIHER'S SURVEY OF OCCUPATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL GOALS FOR CHILDREN My name is . I am representing the University of . He are making a research study of how children in the 5th and 6th grades think about their future education and Jobs. what they want to be when they grow up. and how much they know about different Jobs. We would like to talk to you for a few minutes about how ygu_feel about the future of your 5th and 6th grade child and ask you some questions about the family. the child. and current issues. fittfifififiififlfitfit Date :kess or location lhphone number. :2 of child School {£6 I-6, OCCUPATIONAL ASPIRATIONS AND EXPECTATIONS FOR THE CHILD [dung with «the child about (We job) L Have you ever talked with innch‘AuAucg child) about the kind of Job he (she) might have when he (she) grows up? Grade County ukcupationat AApiaationl 2. a. If you could choose any Job. what kind of Job would you most like (name, Aunucy chéldl to have when he (she) grows up? How likely do you think it is that (name) will be able to get that kind of Job? I. very likely 4. not at all likely 2. pretty likely 5. don't know 3. not so likely c. Why do you think thit? ukcupationat Expectation! 3. what kind of Job do you think (name) really will have when he (she) grows up? "s. 5.63. 2"69’ p. I 141 (Tathtng with chttd about education) 4. Have you ever talked with (name) ' l. yes. a lot 2. yes. a little ___—3. no (Educational. Mpilmtionai 5. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD AND READ HIIN NER.) If you had your choice. how far would you like (name) to go in school? 1. 8th grade 2. l or 2 years of high school 3. go to a trade school instead of finishing high school 4. finish high school 5. finish high school and go to a trade school 6. l or 2 years of college ____]. finish college (Educationat EchctattanaI 6. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD AND READ HIT" HER.) How far do you think will go in school? l. 8th grade 2. l or 2 years of high school 3. go to a trade school instead of finishing high school 4. finish high school 5. finish high school and go to a trade school 6. l or 2 years of college 7. finish college "OH. I HILL ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT SOHE IHINGS YOU DO. about how far he (she) should go in school? (name) really ITEMS 7-I5, EXPUSURE T0 LARGER SOCIETY 7. Does anyone in your family take or read any daily newspapers regularly? ;. yes (name or place published) . no 8. How often does someone in the family listen to a news program on the radio or IV? l. every day 2. 2 or 3 times a week 3. once a week 4. seldom or never . 9. About how many hours a day. on the average. do Log watch TV (all kinds of program) 1. none 2. no more than an hour (IF ANSWER IS ”DON‘T KNOH. "ASK: Now many programs did you watch yesterday?) 3. l or 2 hours 4. 3. 4. or 5 hours 5. more than 5 hours l0. How much time does (name) watch TV on a school day? l. none 2. no more than an hour 3. l or 2 hours 4. 3. 4. or 5 hours . more than 5 hours HS. 5'63. 2".69' pe z 142 ll. Do you belong to a church or attend regularly? l. belong and attend regularly 2. belong but don't attend regularly 3. don't belong but attend regularly 4. don't belong and don't attend regularly )2. Are you a member of any clubs or organizations. such as the Homemakers Club. a social club. the PTA. a church related organization. etc. 1. yes. one or more 2. none l3. Are you registered to vote? l. yes 2. no l4. Have you voted in any election or primary during the past two years? l. yes 2. no )5. Do you happen to know who 319 l. Correctly identifie t 2. did not know ouehnoa 06 state) is? he governor (RAND RESPONDENT CARD.) This card contains a list of statements that some people each of them over slowly with you. and you agree with and some don't. I'll read tell me if you agree or disagree with it. (DON'T SUGGEST UNDECIDED AS ANSHER.) Lu, u, 2.0, 22, s 24‘ (State -— Anouu'a Scale) "Ethan'a Anemia on Alienation) :u n, )9, u, 23, 25,341 Mothea'a Achievement Value Oaientationl ve pretty much for today and let tomorrow take iloaen -- l6. Nowadays. a person has to II care of itself. l. agree 2. disagree 3. undecided II. All a man should want out of life is steady work that is not too hard with enough pay-to afford a nice car and home. . agree 2. disagree . 3. undecided )8. In spite of what some people say. the life of the average person is getting worse. not better. I. agree 2. disagree. ' 3. undecided the success he is going to have is already in the as well accept it and not fight against it. 2. disagree 3. undecided l9. When a person is born. cards. so he might Just l. agree now whom he can count on. 20. These days a person doesn't really k 2 disagree 3. undecided l. agree . not expecting too much out of life and bein 3. undecided Zl. The secret of happiness is 9 content with_what comes your way. l. agree 2. disagree MS. 5.63. 2".69. pa 3 _ 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. ITEM 29 143 It's hardly fair to bring children into the world with the way things look for the future. 2. disagree. 3. undecided l. agree Nothing is worth the sacrifice of moving away from one's parents. l. agree 2. disagree 3. undecided There's little use in writing to public officials because often they aren’t really interested in the problems of the average person. l. agree 2. disagree' ____3. undecided A good son would try to live near his parents even if it means giving up a good Job in another part of the country. i. agree 2. disagree 3. undecided Planning only makes a person unhappy since your plans hardly ever work out anyway. l. agree 2. disagree 3. undecided Nowadays with world conditions the way they are the wise person lives for today and lets tomorrow take care of itself. l. agree 2. disagree 3. undecided People like me don't have much of a chance to be successful in life. i. agree 2. disagree 3. undecided (Kuhn -- Paaentai Valued Scate) (Chaaacteaiatica o‘ chitdaen that motheAi uatuel 29. (NAND RESPONDENT CARD AND READ HITN NER.) This card has sixteen statements. I am going to read all of them first and then you tell me the three that you think are the most important for a boy (girl) of' 's age? i. that he (she gets along well with other children 2. that he (she has good manners 3. that he she tries hard to succeed 4. that he (she is neat and clean ._‘__5. that he (she is liked by adults 6. that he (she acts in a serious way 7. that he she is able to defend himself (herself) 8. that he (she) has self-control 9. that he (she is affectionate l0.that he she is hap y ll.that he she obeys is (her) parents well l2.that he she is honest l3.that he she; is dependable g___)4.that he she is considerate of others l5.that he she is interested in why and how things happen l6.that he (she) is a good student ITEMS 30-37 (Occupation o‘ Paaenta) H5. 5’63. 2'.69. pa 4 33. II. on 32-33 b. b. 144 ECIFIC A DESCRIPTION 1. no husband 2. unemployed (DESCRIBE USUAL HORK) ___. If the husband‘s (or respondent's) occupation is farmer. classify his farm operation as one of the following: l. “Gentleman farmer“ or landowner who does not directly supervise his operations ' , 2. Large landowner who supervises some of his operations . 3. Farm operator with one or more regular paid laborers: farm manager 4. Small farm owner-operator with no regular paid laborer 5. Tenant operator with no regular paid laborer; hired foreman 6. Sharecropper or regular paid laborer 7. Migrant worker. day laborer or squatter Do you have a job? l. no. housewife only 2. yes. Now many hours a week? 3. usually work but unemployed now -(DESCRIBE USUAL WORK BELDR) What kind of work do you do? (GET SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION) lluidence Statna o‘ Paaenta) 32. 33. b. b. Have you ever lived outside this county? 1. yes 2. no If yes. have you lived: (Check all that apply) l. in an adjoining county? 2. some place else in this state? 3.'in an adjoining state? 4. in another southern state. not adjoining? 5..some place else? (OHIT FDR URBAN AREAS) have you ever lived in a city (25.000 or more)? . no I. yes (OHIT FOR RURAL AREAS ) Have you ever lived in the country or in a small town (less than 2.500 ? l. yes 2. no Has you husband ever lived outside this county? 0. no husband l. yes 2. no If yes. has he lived: (Check all that apply) l. in an adjoining county? 2. some place else in this state? 3. in an adjoining state? ‘ 4. in another southern state. not adjoining? 5. some place else? "S. 5‘63. 2".69. Pa 5 APPENDIX D TEN-YEAR FOLLOW-UP SURVEY OF YOUNG PEOPLE 145 As indicated In the enclosed letter, we want to know what you are doing and planning now. ten years after you first gave us Infor- mation about yourself. You are part of a sample of over l.000 young people who grew up in the South. Your answers are important because it is hoped that this information will help young people take better advantage of their educational and job opportunities. i334 PLEASE READ CAREFULLY AND COMPLETE ALL QUESTIONS ON THE FORM IN THE WAY THAT SEEHS BEST TO YOU. IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS WHICH HICHT EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWERS. PLEASE FEEL TREE TD "RITE THEN DESIDE THE QUESTIONS. PLEASE TAKE A FEW HINUTES. NON, TO COMPLETE YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE. RETURN IT AS SOON AS YOU CAN IN THE POSTAGE-PAID ENVELOPE...THANK YOU VERY HUCH..... a e Agricultural Experiment Stations In these Southern states and universities: ALABAMA--Aiabama A t M University, Normal e KENTUCKY--Unlversity of Kentucky. Lexington e HiSSISSlPPl--Alcorn State University. Lorman e NORTH CAROLINA-- ' University of North Carolina at Greensboro a North Carolina State University. Raleigh a SOUTH CARDLINA--Ninthrop College. Rock Hill a TENNESSEE-~University of Tennessee. Knoxville e ViRClNiA--Virginia Polytechnic Institute 3 State University. DIacksburg e USDA / SEA. Cooperative Research. Washington. DC e e 146 TEN-YEAR FOLLOW—UP SURVEY OF YOUNG PEOPLE case cope ________ couwrv I975 * I969 scwooc NAME A__. [TOUR PRESENT summon] -_—— i. Do you now live in the country. In a town. or In a city? I. in the open country or a small town (under I0.000 people) a big town or small city (l0.000-h9.999 people) . in a big city or its suburbs (50.000 and up) h. in the country near a big city or Its suburbs (50.000 and up) 2. how close are you living now to where you were living when you were growing up and going to school? In the same community or very near In the same state. but a different community in a nearby state In a different part of the USA e 3. With whom do you now live? By myself (or by myself with children) I. ____2. With my parents _____3. With my husband or wife ____A. With parents and husband or wife _____5. With other relatives ____9. With person(s) not related to me (In house. apartment house. dormitory. rooming house. the Armed forces. etc.) h. Are you presently ____I. Single (never married) 2. Nerried 3. Divorced or separated h.Wwad 5. When were you (first) married? Honth Year How old were you? [::] [heck (I) here if never married. 6. Now many chlldren do you have? SSF 5-63/5-I26 follow-up. I979. p. l 7. What were you doing in each of the years since I975? 147 1‘ you nmAe doing none than one thing dnning the ycaa. check (I) as many boxes as nppfy. checking each one you wane doing that ycan. You my wash .to atamt with "75 and Mad down the but 0‘ demo. Ihcn go to the next yuan. r... How nuny of these thjnus were you doing ........ I975? I976? I977? I978? flow I979? Going to high school or graduating . b. Working in a full-time or part-time job or se"-ewl°YCd O O O O I D O O O O O O c. d. Enrolled In graduate or professional school . . faking academic courses at a two- or four- year college . . . . . . faking vocational or technical course(s) at any kind of school or college (for exanpie. trade. vocational. business. correspondence course. or other career training) On active duty In the Armed Forces (or service .cadcn'y) O O O O C O O O I O O O O C O O O O Homemaker / Housewife . . . Unenvloyed. tenvorary layoff from work. looking 0 O C for work. or waiting to report to work . . . Working without pay (for parents. relatives. or others) . . . . . . . Something else (tell what) Now. what have been your job experiences? Please give the name of the job or type of work you had during each of the following years. was the same as the year before. I975 I976 I977 I978 Present (now). I979 (Please write in "same" if the job if you had no regular job. please write "none".) 148 9. During last year (i978). how many weeks of the 52 were you without work because you couldn't find a job or were laid off? I I weeks ID. if you were unemployed during l978. what was the nuln reason? Check (I) one. The job I had was discontinued. I was fired. i quit my job to look for a better job. k. i quit because I didn't like the job I had. 5. i quit for personal or family reasons. U N o a . i quit for other reasons. '0‘ _____7. i did not find work when school ended. 'F‘ 8. I've never had a regular job. ll. (heck (I) the category that best describes the amount of money you are making (before tax and other deductions). lf married. also check the category that best describes t the amount of money your husband or wife makes (before tax and other deductions). Q s“' on WIFE lione 2k. _. _ I. 2. tess than $300 per month (less than $75 per week) 3. $300-$h99 per month ($75-$l2k per week) h. $500-$699 per month ($l25-5l7h per week) 5. 5700'3999 per month (Sl75-52h9 per week) 6. SIOOO-Slh99 per nomth ($250-$376 per week) 7. SISOO or more per nonth ($375 or more per week) i2. Check (J) all of the sources from which you are now getting money. (If married. answer for self and husband or wife.) I Salary or wages from employment or work 2 3. Rents from property owned or interest on savings and Investments . Profit or fees from operating a farm. business or profession '0. Honey from parents or relatives 5. Social Security or other pensions ____6. Governnent welfare (food stamps. Aid to Dependent Children. etc.) 7. Unemployment conpensation 8. Gifts or private relief (scholarships. fellowships. or other financial aid for schooling) 9. Other (tell what) 149 I}. Now. read the list again In question III and CIRCLE the source from which you get the most money. How often did you use the following methods in looking for or getting the jobs you have held since the beginning of l975? Check (4) all that apply. Often Sometimes Never Used Used Used He tltod a. State enployment office . . . . . . . b. Private employment agency . . . . . . c. Comonity action or welfare groups . . d. Newspaper. TV. or radio ads . . . . . e. ielephoned or went around on my own to places where there might be a job (without knowing whether or not one was available). . . . . . . . . . . f. Employer asked me to work . . . . . . 9. Registration with a union . . . . . . h. Parents or relatives . . . . . . . . . '0 rrlends C I O O O O O C O O O 0 C O 0 1. Teachers or school counselors . . . . k. School or college placenent service . I. Applied for a government Job (federal. state. or local) . . . . . . . . . m. Applied to a military service (Army. Navy. e‘c.) . O C O O O O C O O C O o. Other (tell what) Check here if the question does not apply to you. 150 l5. How much have the following things kept you from getting the JOBS you really wanted? Check (I) one box after each reason. [:::] Check here If the question does not Not enough money to go to vocational/ technical school or college . . . lack of Infornutlon about jobs . . . Hyflce....'.......... "y’exaoaaaoaaoaaaeaa Didn't want to move away from 'r'end, Ol’ f'm‘.’ a a a a a a a a Not smart enough . . . . . . . . . . ihe schools i have gone to . . . . . lack of good job opportunities where i grew up . . . . . . . . . Lack of chance to develop leadership qualities when i was growing up . Lack of parents' Interest and encouragement . . . . . . . . . . Good jobs are getting too scarce ‘n ‘he USA I O O O O O C O O O I No vocational/technical school or college nearby . . . . . . . . . Didn't know the right people . . . . Ihe effort or work It would have taken to find the right job . . . family responsibilities . . . . . . Something else (tell what It Is) . . Very Much ~Some Very little apply to you. 151 I6. How far have you gone In school? I. left before finishing 8th grade 2. finished 8th grade 3. finished 8th grade and went to a trade or vocational/technical school . some high school . finished high school finished high school and went to a trade or vocational/ technical school 2L business college . started college but have not finished 8. finished junior or conmunity college (2 years) 9. finished college (h years) 0. went beyond college (graduate or professional school) I]. Are you still In school? I. no 2. yes l8. list all the education or training you have had in addition to that above (such as short courses. on-the-job training. etc.). 152 We've been asking you about satisfaction with jobs. education. etc. Now we'd like to ask how you feel about your life as a whole. 32. Below Is a picture of a ladder. Suppose we say that the £92 of the ladder represents the best_possible life for you. and the §2££99 represents the worst possible life for you. lhink for a minute about what would be the best possible life and the worst possible life for you personally. Considering the things you've thought about. where on the ladder would you place yourself In the past. the present. and in the future? Answer each question shown below. a. At what step on the ladder would you BEST POSSIBLE LIFE say you are at the 2I°5°Q£_£1227 FOR YOU SIEP NUMBER b. At what step on the ladder would you say you were five (5) years ago? STEP NUHUER c. At what step on the ladder do you think you will be five (5) Years from now? STEP NUHBER I (:3 h-‘ two (a: 4:. e;1 :35 -.4 CI: '<:3 WORST POSSIBLE LIFE fOR YOU [Egon GOALS FOR THE Furunej 33. If you could choose any job you wanted. what kind of [ob would you really like to have In the future? (Describe clearly what you would do.) 34. What kind of 122 do you think you really will have in the future? (Describe clearly what you would do;) p. l3 153 35. Looking into the future. which of the following statenents best describes how much additional education and training you would really like to have? 0 0 go to a trade or vocational/technical school finish high school finish high school and go to a trade or vocational/technical school 91 business college finish high school 33d 90 to college finish college (4 years) - go beyond college (graduate or professional take short courses or training school) don't really want any further education or training 36. Looking into the future. which of the following statements best describes how much additional education and training you think you really will get? 0 O O 0 go to a trade or vocational/technical school finish high school finish high school and go to a trade or vocational/technical school 2L business college finish high school 229 go to college finish college (h years) go beyond college (graduate or professional take short courses or training school) don't think I will get any further education or training 37. Whose advice ls most helpful to you? Check (I) all who are important for advice aboutgjobs or education Check (I) wife or husband boyfriend or girlfriend 0 mother father brother or sister other relative friends teacher or counselor someone else all who are important for advice about personal or family matters wife or husband boyfriend or girlfriend mther father brother or sister other relative friends teacher or counselor someone else p. lh APPENDIX E RESPONDENT TRACKING PROCEDURESl 1See Turner (1983) and Shoffner (1980) for a detailed description of respondent tracking procedures. 154 Respondent Tracking Procedure In the 1979 lO-year follow-up, tracking procedures initially were based (”1 mail questionnaire. The procedure for locating respondents relied on address maintenance. Telephone contact was utilized for non-respondents. From the 1975 survey, addresses were recorded for respondents, along with parents' full name and home phone numbers. Prior to the 1979 mailing, respondents were sent a newsletter with a postcard for name and address correction and/or verification. The initial newsletter included a post card and was personalized with the subject’s name being handwritten. The researchs’ location where the subject was to return the post card was on the front flap of the newsletter. The newsletter contained information as to the history of subject contact, some findings from the initial phase of the study and the request for verification of present address and phone number. Following the mail procedure, local contacts in_the communities were used to locate the "hard to find individuals" and attempts were made to secure a completed questionnaire. Local contacts in the survey areas attempted to verify current addresses through school personnel and records, old classmates, the post office, telephone office, voting records, and local churches. In one state radio announcements were attempted in an effort to locate non- respondents. 155 Once the respondent was located, a letter on University letter-head hand signed by the researcher, and a questionnaire booklet were mailed to the subject. Following the sending of the questionnaire booklet, a mail reminder postcard was sent. In the last phase of the follow-up procedure, local interviewers telephoned the respondents to ascertain if the questionnaire had been received and then encouraged completion of the questionnaire. APPENDIX F RESULTS OF ANLAYSIS Zero-Order Correlation, Means and Standard Deviations of Variables Table 1. WI.- 156 3333§13¥i§33§35§aliéfififlfifi 5 l a 25 i a: sag zsaaazgxaaaaaxaisasa. l a as? xaaaaagzaaas fiiasiii . a a; iiiiiiiééiiiiiiiiii . :asazia;a=a§§3;aaa 35:33; a .asaa§§5333§§:==aaaaaaa a' aaqaaaaaa aaaazag aesaaz a aasaagtaaaagg=aéasaaa asaaziaaaasgsagaaaaa §a25§§§3.e§§§§aaaas asaaaazaaaaggszaas $5 33$ 33 EafluiflfiIlaaziasflfldiflfliaflfiiaafl Jd~4~4~“§daa£aa§aaidduanauan a .i aaaaagasagaggizaa a: aaasa§aaaaaagaas .5 asaaaaxzasaggaa a : fag'gasaaaagaa : : a';=az:aag§2§ a_i aaaaah gagaag a: aa§§§§é§g§z a: an: aagzgaa al gfiaiiiiii '! fiaiiifiii -l iiiiifii ~E Fania -: sass: -E 535: 7: iii "E 9% a: a : suntan”: : §§§i§§§§§8§§44 I l “m ‘ 3.3. d.” «.30 can 0.8! 3.17 C.” 83.! L6 1., 18.2 13.7 LO 8.6 LI ”- .7! . 1.33.. a.“ “.87 31.34 :1.” L1? 8.1 13.3 I.) do! ‘0‘ ha.- ‘ 157 Table 2. Correlational matrix between youth achievement motivations and educational and occupational attainment Achievement motivation Ed. attainment Occ. attainment Occ. asp. 1969+1975+1979 .242 (524) .273 (385) Occ. asp. 1975+1979 .235 (524) .295 (385) Occ. asp. 1969 .124 (524) .118 (372) Occ. asp. 1975 .356 (466) .370 (333) Occ. asp. 1979 .317 (433) .363 (318) Occ. exp. 1969+1975+1979 .289 (524) .332 (385) Occ. exp. 1975+1979 .308 (524) .363 (385) Occ. exp. 1969 .124 (524) .118 (372) Occ. exp. 1975 .382 (466) .313 (333) Occ. exp. 1979 .479 (369) .586 (286) Ed. asp. 1969+l975+1979 .398 (524) .276 (385) Ed. asp. 1975+1979 .434 (524) .268 (385) Ed. asp. 1969 .168 (524) .140 (372) Ed. asp. 1975 .482 (466) .141 (333) Ed. asp. 1979 .363 (525) .223 (374) Ed. exp. 1969+1975+1979 .502 (524) .277 (385) Ed. exp. 1975+1979 .552 (524) .296 (385) Ed. exp. 1969 .185 (524) .120 (372) Ed. exp. 1975 .622 (466) .234 (333) Ed. exp. 1979 .424 (518) .209 (368) Occ. asp.& exp.+ Ed. asp. & exp. 1969 .117 (524) .079 (385) Occ. asp. & exp. + Ed. asp. & exp. 1975 .264 (524) .264 (385) Occ. asp. & exp. + Ed. asp. & exp. 1979 .218 (524) .279 (385) All correlation coefficients; are significant at 5) < .001 except * Numbers in parentheses mean number of valid cases. Underlined numbers indicate the independent variables that are most highly related to the dependent variables. 1558 .uucowauca o.uonuo urmuwuucmwo you Ano.vco. I Nd .no.mu I Aom~.~vm Haauu>o .couuaavo cowmuuuwuu osu aouu moannwua> unwowuwamaulco: wca>oauu uuuuo nucowuwmuoou sung any nuconounou mononucoumn cw uoaaw> any .: v:a.o.oanna c« as .cuamo wad.von. - «a on.- - nq-.nv u Hflauu>o «Aem.v .mfi. «mu. ano. med". auquauuouuauagu a.a~«au ~A¢N.V «em. acn. Nno. come. «mu. .QN. who. am~. accoumxuam hfluaam Amzv doo.- Amzv no.1 @000. 830°. «mm. «an.o moo. «N3. new Amzv «o.u . Amzv ww.~u soc. «oo. .nN. «ao.a ano. mac. «can uuom anon mucosa «a Na auon anon «mango Na Na wouavuavcnum vuuwvumvcnuuca vmuuvuuvcmum vouavuuvaauuca Ahaqaam any okuch vocoaaucn -.u0£uo ucauuuwcwam swaounh nuuomum uuauwvcu uuwumauouuuuusu u.wawau ucoacwmuu< Hmcoaummauuo co moanaaum> ucuucoauvcn wouuuaom no mucouuw uuuuavcm .n manna