”fir—«Hf.

: ....3

.N .1
4.755..
...

I...
. t

3m“
In!

.x.
E .... I
. ......“ .21. 9

in.
£12.: 3:.

wmmmmfiw .

21.3.2.9

3... ..1..7:.(...I
1.15... ...s«

.33.. .

 

:33: .. n1... Lx......u...3.h..._u.. l nu A. . s : .....JEQ1a.~§¢§a:322; n .... “...... i....r.....I...: v3.

 

 

{H513

’~

5
26°”

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

AN EXPLORATION OF CAREER AND LIFESTYLE BEHAVIORS
. WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF
COLLEGE STUDENT DEVELOPMENT
FOR UNDERGRADUATE FEMALE

FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES STUDENTS
presented by

Delene W. Lautigar

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

2h . D . .. degree in mm Chi 1d
Ecology

7zlg4wmdg (fii:£i:j%:>~
/ ‘\Ma£)r professor
Date 51/ él/ 0 ‘Z

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE ' ‘ DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIFICIDateDue.p65-p.15

 

AN EXPLORATION OF CAREER AND LIFESTYLE BEHAVIORS
WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF COLLEGE STUDENT DEVELOPMENT
FOR UNDERGRADUATE FEMALE
FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES STUDENTS
By

Delene W. Lautigar

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

2002

ABSTRACT
AN EXPLORATION OF CAREER AND LIFESTYLE BEHAVIORS WITHIN THE
CONTEXT OF COLLEGE STUDENT DEVELOPMENT FOR
UNDERGRADUATE FEMALE FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES
STUDENTS
By

Delene W. Lautigar

The study explored the career and lifestyle behaviors of women, aged 17 to 25,
preparing for careers in Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS) by majoring in
Human Ecology degree programs in a Southern university. Development of
these behaviors within the context of overall college student development was
measured by self-reported activities reflecting the degree of growth in the areas
of career behaviors, lifestyle behaviors, educational involvement, and cultural
participation. Growth and progress were distinguished among subgroups by
student classification, point of entry into the current major (in terms of when in
the college career the major was declared), and whether the declared major was
associated with a certification or licensure procedure. Family background
characteristics such aS parent’s education level and number of family members
with a Similar career were examined for their potential effect on career and

lifestyle behaviors.

The exploration of college student development, Specifically career and lifestyle
development, was based on the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle
Assessment (Winston, Miller, and Cooper, 1999a). The Student Developmental

Task and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA) measured the constructs related to

college student development. Other demographic information was collected via

an additional questionnaire constructed by the researcher.

The sample consisted of 131 female students majoring in degree programs in
the School of Human Ecology. Significant relationships were observed in the
sample for the independent variables of classification and number of family
members with a Similar career. Classification (freshman, sophomore, junior, or
senior) was positively correlated to greater development of career behaviors and
educational involvement, as well as a composite measure of career and lifestyle
development. Number of family members with a similar career (from no family
members to three or more family members) was positively correlated to greater
development of career behaviors and educational involvement, as well as a
composite measure of career and lifestyle development. The findings imply
directions for future research, programming for college females and Family and
Consumer Sciences professionals, and theory-building in the area of college

student development.

Copyright by
DELENE W. LAUTIGAR
2002

To God be the glory.

“ . . . With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.”
(Matthew 19:26, King James Version)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to gratefully acknowledge the support and assistance of those who
have helped to complete this endeavor. Dr. Norma Bobbitt’s determined
persistence provided the impetus I needed again and again. Dr. Dennis Keefe
challenged and inspired my thinking from the very beginning. Dr. June Youatt
repeatedly emphasized the need for the balance of theory and practice. Dr. Anna
Ortiz was the right person at the right time to Sharpen the focus on college

student development.

Colleagues in the School of Human Ecology at Louisiana Tech University offered
constant encouragement and advice, especially Mrs. Lori Myers and Dr. Elaine
Molaison. Dr. Duane Dowd contributed valuable statistical consultation. The
prayers of the friends and church family of Life Christian Church and the
Pentecostals of the Twin Cities are priceless. Heartfelt gratitude is expressed to

David and Kathy Stephens and their family.

Our family members provided countless resources of time and other
contributions. My daughter Rachel especially understood when Mommy had “just
a little more work to do.” Above all, I thank my husband Scott for his loving

support and for believing in me when I didn’t believe in myself.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. x
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... xi
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1
Statement of Problem ...................................................................................... 5
Theoretical Perspectives ................................................................................. 6
Chapter 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................. 14
Career Development Theories ...................................................................... 14
Super’s Life-Career Rainbow ..................................................................... 16
Holland’s Vocational Personalities ............................................................. 18
College Student Development ....................................................................... 21
Erikson’s Epigenesis of Identity ................................................................. 24
Kohlberg’s Moral Development .................................................................. 25
Perry’s Intellectual and Ethical Development ............................................. 25
Chickering’s Vectors of Development ........................................................ 27
Developing Competence ........................................................................ 28
Managing Emotions ................................................................................ 29
Moving Through Autonomy Toward Interdependence ........................... 29
Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships ..................................... 30
Establishing Identity ............................................................................... 30
Developing Purpose ............................................................................... 31
Developing Integrity ................................................................................ 31
Measuring the Vector Theory of College Student Development ................ 32
Women’s College and Career Development Perspectives ............................ 33
Family and Consumer Sciences Contextual Factors ..................................... 39
Values and the Profession ......................................................................... 40
Historical Perspective of Programs ............................................................ 41
Historical Perspective of Student Values ................................................... 43
Research from the 1970’s Decade ......................................................... 44
Research from the 1980’s Decade ......................................................... 49
Current State of the Field ........................................................................... 53
Recent Research on Family and Consumer Science Students .............. 55
Chapter Summary ......................................................................................... 61
Chapter 3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................ 62
Research Objectives ..................................................................................... 62
Research Questions ...................................................................................... 63
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................. 64
Definitions ...................................................................................................... 67
Research Assumptions .................................................................................. 73
Research Limitations ..................................................................................... 74

vii

Hypotheses ................................................................................................... 75

Research Question #1: Classification ...................................................... 76
Research Question #2: Point of Entry into Major .................................... 78
Research Question #3: Interaction of Classification and Point of Entry .. 80
Research Question #4: Certification track ............................................... 82
Research Question #5: Family Background Characteristics ................... 84
Research Question #6: Interaction of Family Characteristics .................. 88
Research Design for the Study ...................................................................... 88
Variables .................................................................................................... 89
Instrumentation .......................................................................................... 95
Selection Process ................................................................................... 95
Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment ...................... 100
Demographic Questionnaire ................................................................. 102
Sample ..................................................................................................... 103
Procedures ............................................................................................... 106
Summary of Research Design as lnforrned by Pilot Study ...................... 107
Summary of Methodology ............................................................................ 111
Chapter 4. RESULTS ...................................................................................... 1 13
Compilation and Reduction of Raw Data ..................................................... 113
Explanation of Analysis Plan ....................................................................... 115
Results of Data Analysis .............................................................................. 117
Description of the Sample ........................................................................ 117
Size .................................................................................................. 1 17
Age and Race ....................................................................................... 118
Classification ........................................................................................ 1 18
Point Of Entry Into Major ....................................................................... 118
Certification Track ................................................................................ 121
Parent’s Education ............................................................................... 122
Parent’s Careers .................................................................................. 124
Other Family Member’s Careers .......................................................... 126
Family Income ...................................................................................... 126
Investigation of Variables ......................................................................... 128
Classification ........................................................................................ 128
Point of Entry into Major ....................................................................... 128
Interaction of Classification and Point of Entry ..................................... 130
Certification or Licensure Track ............................................................ 132
Family Characteristics .......................................................................... 134
Hypotheses Testing ..................................................................................... 140
Research Question #1: Classification .................................................... 140
Research Question #2: Point of Entry into Major .................................. 141
Research Question #3: Interaction of Classification and Point of Entry 142
Research Question #4: Certification track ............................................. 142
Research Question #5: Family Background Characteristics ................. 143
Research Question #6: Interaction of Family Characteristics ................ 144
Summary of Results .................................................................................... 145
Research Question #1: Classification .................................................... 145

viii

Research Question #2: Point of Entry into Major .................................. 146
Research Question #3: Interaction of Classification and Point of Entry 146

Research Question #4: Certification Track ............................................ 147
Research Question #5: Family Background Characteristics ................. 147
Research Question #6: Interaction of Family Characteristics ................ 147
Chapter 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................ 149
Career and Lifestyle Development .............................................................. 150
The Relationship of Student Characteristics ............................................ 150
The Relationship of Family Background Characteristics .......................... 152
Limitations of the Study ............................................................................... 154
Conclusions ................................................................................................. 156
Recommendations ................................................................................... 157
Implications for Future Research ......................................................... 157
Implications for Programming ............................................................... 160
Implications for Theory Building ........................................................... 161
Appendix A: Demographic Questionnaire .................................................... 164
Appendix B: Human Subjects Approval ....................................................... 171
Appendix C: Analysis Plan ........................................................................... 176
REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 186

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Theoretical Model .............................................................................. 12
Figure 2: Conceptual Model .............................................................................. 66
Figure 3: Variables in the Study ........................................................................ 94

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Evaluation of Career Development Instruments ................................. 97
Table 2 Evaluation of Values Instruments ........................................................ 98

Table 3 Comparison of Pilot Study Means on Career and Lifestyle

Development by Division ....................................................................... 109
Table 4 Comparison of Pilot Study Means on Career and Lifestyle

Development by Major ........................................................................... 110
Table 5 Point of Entry into Major .................................................................... 120
Table 6 Parental Education Levels ................................................................ 123
Table 7 Parent’s Careers ............................................................................... 125
Table 8 Family Income ................................................................................... 127
Table 9 Correlation of Classification and Point of Entry with Career and

Lifestyle Behaviors ................................................................................ 129
Table 10 Regression of Classification and Point of Entry into Major on

Career and Lifestyle Development ........................................................ 131
Table 11 Comparison of Means on Career and Lifestyle Development by

Certification Track ................................................................................. 133
Table 12 Correlation of Parental Education Level and Career and

Lifestyle Development ........................................................................... 135
Table 13 Correlation of Family Members with Similar Career to Career

and Lifestyle Development .................................................................... 137
Table 14 Regression of Family Characteristics on Career and Lifestyle

Development ......................................................................................... 139
Table 15 Analysis Plan .................................................................................. 177

xi

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION

“What will I be when I grow up?” Although the question may remind one of
childhood, it remains a relevant and salient question for several decades of the
lifespan. The process of coming to know one’S future identity as represented by
career and lifestyle goals is highly individualized, yet can still be examined for
Similarities among groups of interest such as a particular age band, gender, or
profession. This study sought to better understand the process of preparing for
an integrated career and lifestyle for a group of interest that included the late
adolescent to young adult age band (aged 17 to 25), women, and future
professionals in the Family and Consumer Sciences field. The integration of
behaviors that prepare for employment and envision a lifestyle is of particular
prominence in the study due to the literature in the field of career choice
development, which acknowledges that a “career” Should be viewed as more
than just a means for economic provision. In this study, and often in the
literature, the term career is intended to mean the holistic inclusion of work and
lifestyle, vocation and evocation. Lifestyle choices are those based on values
and beliefs about the importance of family, marriage, personal development, and

wealth or material goods, among other aspects of life.

Young adulthood brings with it numerous developmental challenges, not the
least of which is preparing to support oneself and one’s family through

employment. Although young adults do not have exclusive domain in the issues

surrounding career choice, career theorists devote more attention to this age
group due to the viewpoint of age and stage appropriateness of the issues
(Super, 1974, 1980). Career counselors also find that the young adult age group
approach career decision-making activities with higher levels of anxiety and
insecurity than older adults (Luzzo, 1999). The research focused specifically on
college-aged youth in an attempt to refine the motives and methods of study.
The issues of career choice and development that receive specific attention
during young adulthood and more Specifically the college ages remain relevant
across the lifespan. In July of 2001, among unemployed Americans the
percentages of job leavers (12.1%) and reentrants into the work force (29.4%)
far exceeded the 9.5 % of new entrants into the work force (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2001 B). However, having a college degree seems to improve the
possibilities of employment, because in July 2001 the unemployment rate for
high school graduates with no college was 3.4, compared to 1.9 unemployment
rate for college graduates (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2001c). American youth
seem to value a college degree, given that 63.3 % of year 2000 high school
graduates were enrolled in college in the Fall of that year (Bureau of Labor

Statistics, 2001a).

When considering Issues of college students and interrelated career and
lifestyle, this researcher believes that college students are concurrently trying to
define themselves in terms of work and trying to define their notion of work in
terms of important others. Factors that affect this definition process seem to rely

on what is valued by the individual (Holland, 1985; McGregor, 1996; Super,

1980). Researchers in the field of values define a value as the utmost of desires
or priorities (Rokeach, 1973, 1979). Understanding what is prized or most
important is often the first phase of developing oneself for a lifetime of

employment that will remain congruent with one’s self-beliefs.

Certain characteristics define the lifestyle goals and values of the college student
of the twenty-first century (Hansen, 1998). This student is more likely to aim for
financial success than personal fulfillment as evident in several recent studies.
According to a study of students at 665 universities sponsored by the American
Council on Education (Bronner, 1998) almost three-fourths of students (74.9%)
indicated their goal was to be financially “well off, while only 40.8% wanted “to
develop a meaningful philosophy of life.” Another report (Layton, 1999) stated
that enrollment in graduate programs has declined Sharply Since 1992 for
disciplines such as biological and physical sciences, perhaps because
employers are making such lucrative financial offers to recent graduates. In a
study associated with two New England universities, both parents (75% of those
surveyed) and students (85% of those surveyed) seem to think that the purpose
of college is career preparation, although only 37% of business executives agree
(Masci, 1998). The college students of the 21" century are more likely to be
female than male (Doyle, 1999), have high levels of computer literacy, be
politically apathetic, expect good grades, be less likely to drink or smoke than the
cohort of two decades ago, and be more liberally minded on human rights issues

(Engle, n.d.). Some of these characteristics can be viewed as extensions of the

values and belief systems of the young adult likely to be in college today and

preparing to be a professional of tomorrow (Biddle, Bank, & Slavings, 1990).

Matching an individual’s values to a career is especially intriguing when viewed in
the context of Family and Consumer Science (FCS) professions. The origin of
FCS as a field of study was the preparation for the “career” of home
management (McGrath & Johnson, 1968). Of highest value was the science of
successfully feeding, clothing, cleaning the environment of, and seeing to the
general well being of the family. Throughout the diverse history of the FCS
profession, it has continued to maintain that the family is the basic unit of society.
As more and more universities concentrate heavily on employment-based
education, the “liberal arts” tradition of holistic self-improvement in higher
education is waning. However, the field of Family and Consumer Sciences
maintains a synergistic approach to career and lifestyle development,
acknowledging the intertwining nature of activities inside and outside the home
and family. Because the focus of the profession is so human and personal in
nature, preparation for careers in the field involves a personal investment. The
student majoring in an FCS field in college may be asked to examine personal
values as a means of discovering the professional philosophy with which he or
she will attempt to improve the quality of life for individuals and families (Horn,

1981)

The combination of a career-choice process that is value-laden (Chickering &
Reisser, 1993) and a field of careers that necessitates constant self-examination

of values create a complex context for study. Such iS the context for the present

4

research. How well do FCS students progress in integrating career and lifestyle
development throughout college? Do seniors exhibit higher levels of
understanding about their own values and how they relate to their career than
freshmen? The study explored one group of Family and Consumer Sciences
majors in a Southern university in an attempt to obtain a clearer picture of the

nature of future professionals in the field.

Statement of Problem

Career and lifestyle development for the college-aged student is a process of
planning for a life including vocation and evocation, maximizing educational
resources while in college, and experiencing new or different cultures or fine arts.
One manifestation of this process is choosing a major and aligning academic
and extracurricular activities with the career that major represents. Choosing a
career involves identifying personal values and operationalizing those values
with appropriate behaviors. The timing of the choice of major may influence the
degree of commitment to career preparation activities, SO the present study
examined the effect of the timing of declaration of a Family and Consumer
Sciences major on the career and lifestyle development. Additionally, because a
student enters the college experience with values influenced by family
background characteristics, this study examined the effect of parental education

levels and number of family members with a similar career.

This study also explored issues associated with choosing and preparing for a

career in Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS). The identity of the FCS

profession has evolved according to the Shifting emphasis on specialization in a
content area versus application of general principles of all content areas within
the field. Thus, the present research sought to understand the relationship of
pursuing a specialization with a certification procedure to the development of
clear career and lifestyle purposes. This study also attempted to corroborate
prior research indicating that a college student progresses in career and lifestyle

development from the freshman to the senior year.

The findings of the present study can illuminate teaching, recruiting, and
mentoring activities within the Family and Consumer Sciences profession.
Results can encourage further research on developmental progress of students
both inside and outside the profession, as well as longitudinal studies of future

FCS professionals.

Theoretical Perspectives

Although a wide variety of theories exist through which the study could have
found its focus, two major theories refined and anchored the research. The two

theoretical perspectives are (See Figure 1)

Family and Human Ecology Perspective

Vector Theory of College Student Development

Family Ecology theory is a complex approach designed to view the individual in
the context of the environment (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). Family ecology theory

has its roots in ecology and systems theory. The family is viewed as an organism

Within a system and as an ecosystem comprised of individual organisms. The
theory focuses on the interaction between a family and its surroundings on the
immediate, societal, and cultural levels. Human Ecology theory also emphasizes
the interaction between organism and environment but has the individual as its
central focus rather than the family. Both the Family Ecology Theory and the
Human Ecology Theory are broad and encompass multiple layers of concepts
and interactions, making them difficult to research in one study. However, they
provide the appropriate overarching perspectives for a study that attempts to
examine an individual college student’s transition from the family of origin, to
interdependence within the college environment, to the formation of a new family
integrating career and lifestyle goals. Several concepts from the Family and
Human Ecology Perspective relate closely to this research endeavor, and will be

described in the following paragraphs.

Three interrelated environments surround humans: natural physical, cultural
behavioral, and constructed technological. Of those three, the cultural behavioral
environment contains components that relate most closely to a discussion of
developmental progress in college students. Cultural behavioral includes other
human beings, abstract constructions such as values and norms, and social and
economic institutions such as educational and social regulatory systems. The
researcher views these Specific components as influential to college student

development.

Processes of the family ecosystem are considered energy transfonnative

(Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). The family system is adaptive, allowing it to vary its

7

processes according to Situational needs of members. In this way, the family has
more power than a system in a purely mechanical model. Some specific
processes include decision-making and management, sustenance activities, and
organization and communication. Each process entails interaction within the
family and between the family and “external” systems, thus the family must be
examined as a holistic and interdependent entity (Andrews, Bubolz, & Paolucci,

1980).

The family ecosystem attempts to reach outcomes at multiple levels. Micro-level
outcomes affect the immediate family and environment, while macro-level
outcomes concern community, societal, and cultural issues. Micro and macro
environments are involved in a reciprocal relationship with humans.
Environments do not control but can have significant effect on human behavior,
while humans possess Ultimate freedom to control and modify their environment,
whether immediate or larger (national or global). Humans use environmental
resources available to transform matter and energy into information. Decision-
making, using that information, is a tool employed by humans to influence the
environment on many levels, and the decision-making process is a central focus
of establishing purpose in life. Environments are constantly changing throughout
time. Due to the developmental issues being examined, time is an important
element of the process as well. Processes are dynamic over time, evolving and

being refined.

Family and human ecological research seeks “to identify patterns of relationships

between systems and their environments, especially noting what happens at the

8

interface” (Andrews, et al., 1980). Although family ecology draws from multiple
disciplines and theoretical bases for its body of knowledge, it is the interaction of
the organism with its environment that most interests those in the field. An
ecological perspective is critical for maintaining a holistic approach to an
individual’s development and adaptation. Thus it forms a useful foundation for
the study of college student development. Additionally, the nature of student
development is better understood when the researcher considers what the
student is developing from as well as what the student is developing to. A college
student’s behavior and interaction style can be greatly affected by the structure
and processes in the family of origin as one environmental influence, and growth
and development depend on the success of those processes as the student

discovers new perspectives to be evaluated.

At the same time that the influence of the family of origin is acknowledged, one
cannot view growth and development for college students without examining the
college environment itself and its particular influences. Strange and Banning
(2001) purport that modern college campuses are comprised of physical, human
aggregate, organizational (reflecting institutional goals), and constructed
environments. Physical environments include campus layout, accessibility, and
even cleanliness. Human interactions multiply to form aggregate environments in
which college students either find Similarities to provide comfort or feel
uncomfortably different. Organizational environments are composed of the
institutional policies and practices that govern academic, extracurricular, and

social activities on campus. Finally, constructed environments are based on the

subjective perceptions and experiences derived from each individual’s
interpretation of symbolic meaning. Ultimately, a college student’s success is the
result of the complex relationships of these campus environments and their
perceived relevance to the student. A student may choose to reject the relevance
of the influences of the college environments or accept and apply those
influences for personal change and growth. Several theories address change in

college-aged students, one of which lends focus to the present study.

The Vector Theory of College Student Development (Chickering & Reisser,
1993) includes seven aspects of development for college students of traditional
age. The vector, borrowed from mathematics, symbolizes movement in the
forward direction. Each vector has specific characteristics, somewhat like
developmental tasks. The seven vectors are

Developing Competence

Managing Emotions

Moving Through Autonomy Toward Interdependence

Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships

Establishing Identity

Developing. Purpose

Developing Integrity
The model is not purported to be sequential, although the authors recommend
that certain vectors can be “building blocks” (Chickering & Reisser, 1993, p. 37)
for other vectors. These building blocks (Developing Competence, Managing
Emotions, Moving through Autonomy Toward Interdependence, Developing
Mature Interpersonal Relationships) involve developmental tasks that probably

occur earlier during the college experience. The crucial midpoint vector

addresses identity formation (Establishing Identity), followed by Developing

1O

Purpose (vocation and evocation) and Developing Integrity (values, beliefs, and

actions).

Chickering and Reisser do not offer a visual representation of the Vector Theory.
The visualization offered as part of Figure 1 is this researcher’s version. Because
the first four vectors tend to form a foundation for establishing identity, they are
depicted as arrows that “feed into” the identity vector. Each vector is intended to
Show fonlvard motion, or progress, from one state to another. Identity is a central
piece of the entire theory, so it has prominence visually as well. The last two
vectors, Developing Purpose and Developing Integrity, are depicted as
intertwined because of their interrelated nature. AS the college student explores
career choice, he or She benefits from activities that require an examination of
values. The Vector Theory’s premise is that college students operate on their
value system early in their college experience, but as they progress that value
system becomes more clarified and salient for them. Thus students reach a point
in development where they can more clearly explore the connection from their
prioritized values to life decisions such as choice of career, lifestyle, family
formation, etc. Reciprocally, evaluating those life decisions against a standard of
values periodically can further illuminate both the values and the decisions. Of
course, this sort of interrelationship does not end upon graduation, nor does it
begin during freshman orientation. However, this researcher attempted to gain
insight into a part of the process by investigating the career behaviors and

lifestyle behaviors of undergraduates.

11

Figure 1: Theoretical Model

Noon .8953 .>> 0:200 ”neoconEoo touch .0 co=m~__a:m_>
.38: J .586”. can ..>> .< 65.9.9.5 EEO-050 2025 092.00 .0 beef. .660?
.68: .w ..2 655m 2. .2 .s. .588 ”988.com 328m :25: 95 SEE.

\
\

\

\ c3833 2:356 /

\“|l"’
\ I
\ I

9322-33.80 /
$3805 /
SEE. 62358:: 32:33. /

\ 39. a. 3388:: 225.235 _Bo_>a:om\_a5§o £60.08 :95: new 2E5“. /

 

\ A

€323 95

l /
3550 Co 35222 /
EOE 2 m3. 505
32.3 Co «3232661 .28 E.

8529.8 2 365: E05
«3:02.: cm .25 2

cam on E05

co: ocoS<

£33m .mcvfloa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I: ”maeroo getg c. =3 99: 2 8382... SEE Co 2350
A”. WW”: .0 onto» *0 EOEQOESD 5 .96. 53833 Enema».
6.33:. 59 .mom :0. 8:»:20820 EB“.
5225 2 820 E05 «33.52 .
«$895 \
Qom c_ :8 \
/ SE 2 >6. 5 \
ocm 3E
/ we a \
/ \
/ / — NEOEQQOEO E255 30:00 .0 beef. .28) _ \ \
/ \
l I \ \
I I I \I \ \

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I I

2535 30:25 LoEamcoo ucmaEmu ofiEou mun-.3552: Lo.—
EoESEEg .326 03.8 .0 528 05 55.2,
m§>mnom 93on can .850 .6 5:92qu .2

12

Although Chickering and Reisser indicate that the theory is not Similar to a
person-environment interaction theory, the vectors do acknowledge the
existence of systems external to the student. Growth along the vectors
necessitates increasingly successful interaction with other systems, from which
interactions the feedback (from Andrews, et al., 1980) iS processed by the
student. The theory is also cumulative in nature, addressing the adaptation piece
of family ecological theory - progressive growth along each vector both affects

and is affected by growth along other vectors, denoting a perpetual movement.

Aspects of Chickering’s Vector Theory are compatible with concepts in family
and human ecological perspectives. The authors perceive development as a
process that each student will undergo differently, according to the diversity of
familial structure and ways of knowing. However, the ultimate goal (outcome) of
this process is not only “individuation” but also “communion [interaction] with
other individuals and groups, including the larger national and global society.”
(Chickering & Reisser, 1993, p. 35). This researcher perceives the Vector Theory

to be ecological in scope, while developmental in nature.

13

Chapter 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The problem examined in this study explores the career and lifestyle
development of college female undergraduates preparing for Family and
Consumer Sciences careers. The examination of college students is not a new
endeavor, nor is the study of career choice and development. In this chapter the
discussion will move from the broad theories associated with career
development over the lifespan, defined as a holistic approach to vocation and
avocation, to the more specific ideas about how university students prepare for
the future through various growth activities. A section of the literature review will
be devoted to the unique perspectives women bring to both the areas of career
development and college student development. Then the literature will describe
the context of the problem at hand by depicting the particular career

development of Family and Consumer Sciences professionals.

Career Development Theories

Researchers in a variety of fields have been interested in the issues associated
with career choice over many decades of study (Zaccaria, 1970). Numerous
labels, conceptual frameworks, and approaches appear in the literature on the
subject of career choice. Some of those labels include career development
(Osipow, 1995; Super, 1980) vocational development (Zaccaria, 1970),
occupational aspiration (Gottfredson, 1981), and occupational or vocational

choice (Brown, 1970; Zaccaria, 1970). In addition, professionals have attempted

14

to study career choice behaviors in a number of populations, from children
(Gottfredson, 1981) to older adults (Osipow, 1987; Super, 1980). One population
that has received much attention is the young adult group, typically ages 17 to
25. However, the more popular and enduring career development theories are
not limited in scope to college-aged adults. In general, career development is
believed to be a lifelong process, but the literature review will attempt to narrow

the focus to the phase most directly associated with the college years.

The focus on career development or occupational guidance can be traced back
several decades to a time when the industrial revolution necessitated a different
way of viewing “work” (Zaccaria, 1970). Since that time numerous practitioners,
researchers, and theorists have sought to understand and better describe the
predictors, processes, and outcomes associated with work and vocational
choice. For the purposes of this review, the more recent and prominent theories
will be examined. A broad paradigm, Family Ecological Systems (Andrews, et al.,
1980; Bubolz & Sontag, 1993), as well as the researcher’s personal interests, will
guide critical discussion. Family Ecological Systems theory views the individual
as part of a family that functions in an energy-transformation capacity. Processes
such as human development, management, and decision-making, among
others, help the family, and thus the individual, adapt to meet Short- and long-
term goals. The theories will be examined for the degree to which they
incorporate some or all of these ecological concepts. Additionally, the review will

focus on the degree to which the theories emphasize lifestyle choices that

15

complement career choices. The two theories discussed are those developed by

Donald Super and John Holland.

Super's Life-Career Rainbow

Throughout his several decades in the field of career development, Donald E.
Super sought to refine his approach to an individual’s choice, development, and
maintenance of a career (Brown 1970; Osipow 1995,1987; Super 1980; Zaccaria
1970). Acknowledging the complexity and longitudinal nature of a career, he
worked to synthesize several contributing theories into an increasingly adequate
description of the phenomenon. Super’s Life-Career Rainbow (1980) presents a
holistic, developmental picture of an individual’s life, complete with age
parameters. The bands of the rainbow represent nine life roles: child, student,
leisurite (someone pursuing leisure activities, including idle time), citizen, worker,
spouse, homemaker, parent, and pensioner. An individual may play or respond
to all of these roles during a lifespan, or just some of them. Some roles may be
played concurrently with others at certain life stages (for example, worker,
spouse, and parent), or exclusively (for example, child only when a newborn).
When an individual plays multiple roles at a Single stage in life, one role may still

exert stronger influence over behaviors concerning life decisions (Super, 1980).

Super describes four “theaters” of interaction in which the roles are played:
home, community, school (including post secondary institutions), and workplace
(Super, 1980, p. 284). Other theaters such as church and organizations may be

considered part of a larger theater such aS community or school. As with the life

16

roles, not everyone acts in every theater in a lifetime. However, the combination
of roles and theaters across multiple developmental stages make up “life Space”

functioning over the lifespan of any individual.

The Life-Career Rainbow attempts to address external and internal influences on
life Space by including Situational Determinants (history, social and economic
factors, community, family) and Personal Determinants (heritage, skills, needs
and values, awareness). Additionally, in the 1980 version of the Rainbow, Super
discusses the “decision points” (p. 291) that occur when an individual takes on a
new role. The importance of each role, as well as the salience of situational and
personal determinants, affects each choice. Therefore, the author includes a

model for the process that an individual may apply at any decision point.

In order to facilitate understanding of the Life-Career Rainbow, certain
assumptions Should be noted, including definitions. Super (1980) defines a role
as “a set of expectations that others have of a person occupying a position” (p.
285). He goes on to include within that set of expectations the conceptions the
role player has of his own position. This helps to establish the dynamic nature of
the life roles as Super sees them. Roles are largely sequential in nature, “waxing
and waning” as one ages from childhood to retirement. Also, roles are not linked

to a particular gender.

Although Super’s model is inclusive of multiple facets of life, it was designed to
facilitate thinking about and planning for a career. Therefore, he is careful to

make the distinction between the terms occupation and career. According to the

17

author, an occupation is a position held by an individual, usually defined by
behavioral expectations associated with the workplace. However, a career is a
sequence of positions across a lifespan, whether occupational, educational, or
another sort of sequence. Thus the “career” is inclusive of the “lifestyle” of a

person, rather than a separate entity.

The relative strengths and weaknesses of the Life-Career Rainbow are
evaluated here based on the overarching framework of the Family Ecological
Systems perspective. In light of this perspective, Super’s model possesses more
strengths than weaknesses. One obvious strength is the life-span approach used
by the model. The model is inclusive of multiple ages, multiple contexts for
career development, and multiple influences on the general and Specific

decisions made by an individual.

Unfortunately, some of the strengths mentioned above also interpret as
weaknesses. Because the model is so inclusive, it becomes a broad, very
complex paradigm. A researcher may have difficulty operationalizing the model
into measurable concepts. However, the bulk of Super’s own research examined
the concept of vocational maturity, for which he created a specific instrument
(Super, 1974). Additionally, the model is largely stage-developmental, implying

that only forward motion in career maturity is possible.

Holland’s Vocational Personalities

John Holland’s name is widely known and respected in the field of career

development due to the fact that his theory of vocational personalities has been

18

used by universities to provide career counseling assistance to students. Holland
developed the theory to help describe career phenomena such as choosing a
career, achieving satisfaction, and adapting or facilitating career change over a
lifetime (Brown 1970; Holland 1985; Osipow 1995, 1987; Zaccaria 1970). The
author states that the theory’s “primary concern is to explain vocational behavior”
(Holland, 1985, p. 1). However, the theory also addresses educational and social

behaviors as well as personality.

Holland (1985) proposes that most individuals fit into one of Six vocational
personality types (realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising,
conventional). In addition, there exist Six occupational environments with the
same labels as the vocational types. Ideally, persons of a given type will seek to
perform work in the matching environment. Realistic types prefer mechanical and
tangible occupational duties (for example, electrician). Investigative types prefer
intellectual and precise occupational Situations (for example, scientific
researcher). Artistic types seek out creative and aesthetic career qualities (for
example, music or drama). Social types desire to help others in their career (for
example, teaching or guidance). Enterprising types apply problem-solving
behaviors to workplace situations to realize goals (for example, an administrator
or politician). Conventional types value order and economic achievement in the
workplace (for example, clerical or accounting occupations). Professionals in the
field of career development and counseling have conducted considerable
research into the degree of person-environment congruence as proposed by the

theory (Osipow, 1995).

19

In his most recent revision of the Vocational Personality Theory (1985), Holland
acknowledges several background concepts that Should be accepted to facilitate
the use of the theory. Some of these background concepts are theoretical in
nature, in addition to those concepts considered author bias. For the sake of

brevity, only three points will be discussed as assumptions.

The first key assumption is that vocational choice is an expression of personality
rather than a “function of vocational interests” (p. 7). Holland believes that
interests are a component of personality, allowing for multiple influences on
career choice instead of Simply interests and preferences. This assumption
Speaks to the importance of lifestyle as an influence on career choice. A second
notable assumption is that occupational personality-environment congruence
determines satisfaction, stability, and achievement in one’s career. Holland
defines congruence as the degree to which a particular personality’s Skills and
talents are required by an occupational environment. The third assumption to be
discussed here. is theoretical: an individual’s vocational personality develops as a
result of multiple influences, again acknowledging the lifestyle piece. Most
personalities are “well defined between 18 and 30” years of age (Holland, 1985,
p. 11). Holland chooses to simplify the complex influences into a list of nine

personality characteristics.

When examined from a family ecological systems perspective, Holland’s
Vocational Personalities theory has strengths and weaknesses. The theory iS not
a stage developmental theory, which can be advantageous when applying it to a

variety of individuals. One need not fit into a particular age group to find

20

recognizable characteristics, and the model implies neither forward nor backward
motion. Another strength is the apparent ease of operationalizing the concepts,

which has led to the considerable research on the theory.

However, in his attempts to Simplify the discussion of personality development,
Holland reduces the explanatory power of other concepts to illuminate
personality-environment congruence. This simplification might be considered a
weakness because it is less holistic in nature. Additionally, as a typological
model, the theory is concerned with outcomes rather than processes. This focus

makes it more difficult to visualize application across the lifetime of an individual.

Preceding discussion attempted to briefly summarize two key career
development theories. Both of these theories, though relevant across the
lifespan, have been applied extensively in colleges and universities. Many
institutions have career counseling units designed to assist students in choosing
and developing careers. However, a study of college student career choice
behaviors Should be informed by a general understanding of the nature of the
college student. The following section will revisit the broad subject of college
student development, focusing on those areas of development most related to

career choice.

College Student Development

In their extensive summary of literature on the college experience, Pascarella
and Terenzini (1991) devote a chapter to the effect of college on students’ career

choice and development. The authors present a conflicting view of this effect,

21

citing research which indicates that most students choose a career before

entering college and do not vary from that choice, as well as studies estimating

that a considerable number of students change their career Choice while in

college. In order to understand the possible discrepancy between the two

opposing generalizations, the authors acknowledge several college-related

influences on career development.

1.

Mature thinking about careers increases during college, perhaps
because one purpose of the college experience is to “confront one’s
life work” (p. 488).

Occupational choice and institutional quality may be related, although
a direct influence in either direction is unclear.

The “popular” major or field in a university may be the career to which
increasing numbers of students aspire as they progress through their
college years.

Students in certain academic majors (professional or technical
preparation programs like engineering) learn skills more directly linked
to skills used in the workplace than do students in other majors (arts,
humanities, or social sciences).

Faculty often “plays a nontrivial role in the areas of student career
interest and career choice during college." (p. 478)

The college experience does not seem to Significantly affect personal
values related to occupations.

AS Pascarella and Terenzini admit, some of the change in college students

related to career choice may not be a function of college attendance, but simply

a fact of life for any young adult. The researcher has personal experience with

numerous undergraduates who arrive for freshman orientation unsure of their

own career choice. They believe that college is the place for them to be (for a

22

host of reasons), and as they enroll in courses they will surely discover their true
vocation. This type of student may never appear as part of a study reviewed by
Pascarella and Terenzini. Yet the “undecided” student is worthy of attention, if

only to prevent the attrition of another confused young person from college.

The examination of college student development has evolved considerably from
the viewpoint held by the first higher educational institutions founded in America.
Universities had the responsibility for the preparation and education of a select
few in Colonial times. However, attending college has now become an endeavor
worthy of attention from public and private industry, as personnel decisions are
greatly affected by education and training. Thus student development is now
what some term an “essential idea” (Strange, 1994) for the university trying to
prepare its students for life after college. Understanding of how colleges foster or
hinder holistic development of students has received considerable breadth and

volume of attention in empirical research.

Numerous theories address various aspects of development among college
students. Research studies have emphasized these theories with data on the
changes that occur during the college experience, and results have been applied
to the student services arena (Long, Sowa, & Niles, 1995; Martin, 2000; Strange,
1994; Thrasher & Bloland, 1989). For the purposes of this project, three
developmental theories will be evaluated in terms of college student
development: the work of Erikson, Kohlberg, and Perry. Then the discussion will

focus on a theory specifically attributed college student development, that of

23

 

Arthur Chickering. Each theory contributes to the broad conceptualization of the

research questions.

The theories to be examined are primarily concerned with individual
development, rather than family development. This approach is favored in the
field of student development because the college years involve a separation
from family of origin. Research acknowledges that the psychological health of the
family of origin has a Significant effect on a student's adjustment to college.
However, the aspects of adjustment that are the most affected are related to
differentiation from the family. Thus the overarching framework of Family

Ecology theory informs the evaluation of these developmental theories.

En'kson’s Epigenesis of Identity

Erik Erikson’s theory of identity has a foundation in Freud’s psychoanalytic
conflict theory. Erikson (1968) proposes that humans develop throughout the life
cycle, resolving a series of conflicts at different chronological stages. The conflict
that embodies the adolescent years iS that of identity vs. identity confusion.
Erikson makes the statement that the “inability to settle on an occupational
identity . . . most disturbs young people” (1968, p. 132). Many traditional-aged
college undergraduates are still at the peak of this conflict when they are asked
to make choices that will lead to an occupation. However, Erikson’s theory
indicates that some of the conflicts preceding the identity crisis, such as
autonomy vs. shame and doubt (toddler age) and industry vs. inferiority (school

age), lay a foundation for resolving identity confusion at the adolescent age.

24

 

Thus, the successful resolution of conflicts builds a confidence in self, and

contributes to a sense of self.

Kohlberg’s Moral Development

Lawrence Kohlberg (1975) theorizes on the development of moral reasoning in
the context of education. He bases his thoughts on the works of John Dewey and
Jean Piaget, who proposed stages of moral reasoning through which individuals
move sequentially. In each stage, cognitive development leads to what Kohlberg
called “active thinking” about moral decisions. Kohlberg’s discussion of the
education of values is particularly germane to this project. He stresses the need
for educators to practice values clarification rather than values indoctrination.
While indoctrination aims “at teaching universal values . . . [which are] defined by
the opinions of the teacher and the conventional culture" (p. 117), values
clarification elicits “the child’s own judgment or opinion about issues or situations
in which values conflict” (p. 117). If this sort of moral education occurs during
school years, the college student possesses certain pre-formed values when
college begins. These values affect the choices a student will make throughout
college, even as the student continues to clarify his or her own beliefs. The
clarification process can continue throughout college and later adulthood until an

individual reaches the final stage of moral development.

Perry’s Intellectual and Ethical Development

William Perry’s theory (King, 1978), like Kohlberg's, has a foundation in Piaget’s

discussion of the nature of development. Perry focused specifically on college

25

students and their progression through stages of intellectual and ethical change.
He proposed nine positions along a continuum of thought about “the nature of
knowledge, truth, and values, and the meaning of life and responsibilities.” (King,
1978, p. 37) According to Perry, students move from a concrete, right-and-
wrong-answer view of the world (labeled “dualism”), to a desire to commit to a
set of beliefs in a world where many beliefs are valid (“commitment to
relativism”). Various research studies have explored the efficacy of this theory,
and the data have provided evidence that college students do progress in a
sequence much like the theory describes. Freshmen are more likely to exhibit
dualistic thinking, while seniors exhibit more relativistic thinking. While the
implications for the academic setting are apparent, Perry’s model also has been
adapted for use with a career development program (Knefelkamp & Slepitza,
1976). In an evaluation of the program, college students made career choices
differently based on their classification and respective position on the continuum.
The connection between intellectual development and career decision-making

has implications for this project, as well.

The three developmental theories discussed have their bases in psychology,
emphasizing the internal processes and downplaying the influence of external or
environmental forces (Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998). However, one of
the most current and modern perspectives on how college campuses foster
student development is found in Strange & Banning’s work entitled Educating by
Design (2001). The authors stress the importance Of a “learning ecology” on

campus by acknowledging the physical, human aggregated, organizational, and

26

constructed environments of college and their influences on student growth, a
perspective that is more like Family Ecology Theory. Although Arthur
Chickering's theory of how college students grow is a developmental theory, it
has properties that seem family ecological in nature. Development along
Chickering’s Vectors necessitates an inclusion of elements from all of the
environments available to the college student — physical, human, organizational,
and constructed. The Vector Theory of College Student Development is

described in detail in the next section.

Chickering’s Vectors of Development

Arthur Chickering developed the Vector Theory of College Student Development
in response to research in the 1940’s and 1950’s. Numerous studies had
collected data to support broad theories of student development, yet the practical
applications were limited (Widick, Parker, & Knefelkamp, 1978). Chickering
(1969) offered an interpretation of the body of data, what he termed “a
conceptual framework . . . Simple enough to be held in mind ready for application
and comprehensive enough to be relevant.” This interpretation is his Vector

Theory.

In 1993, Chickering teamed with Linda Reisser and wrote a revised edition of the
Vector Theory. Most of the ideas are identical to the first edition, but the authors
responded to feminist critique by altering some of the discussion of autonomy
and independence. They also integrated more than two decades of research on

college students into the new version.

27

The Vector Theory of College Student Development includes seven components
of development, called “vectors” to symbolize forward movement. Each vector
embodies specific developmental tasks that enable developmental progress. The
seven vectors are

Developing Competence

Managing Emotions

Moving Through Autonomy Toward Interdependence

Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships

Establishing Identity

Developing Purpose

Developing Integrity
The following sections will provide a detailed description of the seven vectors

and the developmental tasks associated with each.

Developing Competence

The first vector includes intellectual competence, physical and manual
competence, and social/interpersonal competence, as well as a sense of overall
competence. Intellectual competence addresses the growth of knowledge as well
as critical thinking skills, which “assume significance” for progress along other
vectors. Physical and manual competence is developed primarily through athletic
or fine arts extracurricular activities, although the authors acknowledge that
these Skills do lead to a vocation for some college students. Interpersonal
competence results from recognizing the need for personal behavior change
within the context of relationships with others. An overall sense of competence is
both the prelude to and the outcome of intellectual, physical, and social
competence. Chickering and Reisser also consider it to have implications for the

developing autonomy vector.

28

 

Managing Emotions

Freudian theory includes the “self control” of sexual impulses and aggressive
impulses. The second vector addresses these impulses in the discussion of
“toxic behaviors” that need management. However, the authors also include
other types of emotions that require regulation during the college years. The
strategy for emotional management involves two “reciprocal steps” - increasing
awareness and increasing integration. Increasing awareness consists of
recognizing and accepting human emotions and the habitual responses to them.
Often, college students find themselves challenging the childhood and
adolescent responses to impulses as they discover more about themselves.
Once the habits absorbed from parents and society are acknowledged, one can
move towards integrating the past and present selves with the self that is
becoming - the increasing integration step. Note that the steps are reciprocal,

not sequential.
Moving Through Autonomy Toward Interdependence

The third vector acknowledges the gender difference in achieving separation
from family of origin. Chickering and Reisser designate the three components of
this vector: emotional independence, instrumental independence, and
recognizing/accepting interdependence. Emotional independence is the freedom
from the constant need for approval or reassurance from others. It begins with
disengagement from parents, and moves on to reduced dependence on peers

and institutional components. Instrumental independence includes self-

29

sufficiency and mobility. Emotional independence and instrumental
independence are “mutually facilitating” because a student may be more likely to
move to another place and survive “alone” if successful reduction in dependence
on peers and family has occurred. Finally, interdependence is acknowledged as
“the capstone of autonomy”, or “mature dependence”. One reaches this
acceptance of interdependence when the need for reciprocation with others is

recognized.

Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships

This vector focuses on tolerance of “a wider range of persons”. Developing
mature interpersonal relationships is different from interpersonal competence (in
the first vector) because it is more than a set of skills for accomplishing joint-
effort tasks. The two aspects of this vector are tolerance and appreciation of
differences, and capacity for intimacy. Tolerance has both an intercultural
(focusing on broad groups of people, such as a certain race) and an
interpersonal (accepting individuals whose differences are unusual or marked)
context. The discussion of the capacity for intimacy has its roots in Erikson’s
theory, yet the authors expand the ideas to address gender differences, as well.
The principal accomplishment in this vector is achieving balanced, reciprocal

interpersonal relationships.

Establishing Identity

Although the authors acknowledge that all seven vectors address identity

formation in some dimension, they establish a separate vector in order to

30

address the importance of a developing a “sense of self”. Much of the discussion
of this vector centers on Erikson’s epigenetic principle, and researchers’
attempts to operationalize his work. The sense of self is “grounded” in the way
an individual feels about appearance, gender and sexual orientation, ethnic
history and family background, roles and life-style, others” perceptions and
feedback, self-acceptance, self—esteem, and stability of self-perceptions.
Chickering and Reisser also claim that “establishing identity involves some
knowledge that the ‘l’ is a tip of an iceberg”, or that identity stems from inside yet
can be affected by outside influences. Culmination of identity occurs when one

acknowledges and accepts all aspects of self.

Developing Purpose

According to the authors, the first five vectors address many aspects of the
question “Who am I?” Progress along those vectors eventually leads to new
questions such as “Where am I going? What kind of life do I want to lead?”
Therefore, the sixth vector includes vocational aspirations, personal interests
(avocational) and interpersonal and family commitments. The authors also
discuss the need for “lntentionality”, or the conscious exercising of personal will.
lntentionality reflects the ability to set goals and make choices to achieve those

goals.

Developing Integrity

The vector theory operationalizes integrity as “values . . . that provide at least a

tentative guide to behavior.” Thus, the final vector includes humanizing values,

31

personalizing values, and developing congruence between values and behavior.
Humanizing values involves moving from absolute rules governing behavior to
relativity (according to circumstance). Personalizing values is the accepting and
acknowledging of one’s values. This must occur before these values can be
tested in various situations. The testing and re-evaluation leads to developing
congruence between values and behavior. Chickering and Reisser allude to the
close interrelationship between developing purpose and developing integrity
throughout the respective chapters. They make the statement that “a strong
commitment to a value or belief can determine purpose.” Additionally, the
decision-making that accompanies purpose is made consistent through

“principled thinking” based on values.

Measuring the Vector Theory of College Student Development

Chickering’s original Vector Theory of College Student Development, published
in 1969, generated numerous research studies on its applicability (Chickering &
Reisser, 1993). A group of researchers built upon the theory to design an
assessment tool for college student development (Winston, Miller & Cooper,
19993). The Student Developmental Task Inventory, first published in 1974 by
Prince, Miller, and Winston, operationalized the vectors into developmental tasks
typically associated with the college years. The instrument was revised and
published in 1987 as the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory.
Its most recent revision from 1999 is the Student Developmental Task and

Lifestyle Assessment (Winston, et al., 1999b).

32

The construct of the “developmental task” as measured in the SDTLA is defined

as

“an interrelated set of behaviors that the culture specifies should be
exhibited at approximately the same chronological time of life by
age cohorts in a designated context.” (Winston, et al., 1999a)

While the SDTLA and instruments like it cannot truly assess the successful
accomplishment of a developmental task, it can collect information from students
to provide insight into developmental progress. Through numerous studies used
to compile a normative data set, the SDTLA has shown its usefulness in
measuring a college student’s growth along the seven areas proposed by

Chickering.

The Vector Theory of College Student Development, and its corresponding
assessment tool, the SDTLA, both intend to address somewhat typical growth for
traditionally aged university males and females. As a young person moves from
the freshman orientation to the final term before graduation, one can reasonably
expect growth to occur. Of course, each individual’s experience will differ, but are
there also differences according to subgroups such as gender? The next section
of literature review will identify key issues related to women’s development while

in college and in connection to career and lifestyle development.
Women’s College and Career Development Perspectives

In an effort to assess the affect of psychological separation and parental
attachment on college student development, Schultheiss and Blustein (1994)

used constructs of purpose, autonomy and interpersonal relationships from

33

Chickering’s Vector Theory of College Student Development (1969). The Student
Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory created by Winston, Miller, & Prince
in 1987 (Winston, et al., 1999b), the Student Adaptation to College
Questionnaire, and the Psychological Separation Inventory were the instruments
used to compare attachment and separation as predictors of college adjustment
and development for males and females. The researchers discovered that
women in the study who shared the beliefs of their parents and were emotionally
attached to them were likely to have experienced appropriate development in
and adjustment to college. However, no significant relationships between
separation or attachment and college adjustment and development were
revealed for men in the sample. These results offer some support for gender
differences in the development of college students, which will be explored in
greater detail in this section. Women’s development will be reviewed within the
context of career development while in college. Although there is a breadth of
perspectives on women’s career decision making at any age (Blackhurst, 1995;
Phillips & lmhoff, 1997; Stockton, Berry, Shepson, & Utz, 1980; Stoecker &
Pascarella, 1991 ), the perspectives will be filtered for specific influences within

the college environment.

In her thought-provoking work entitled In a Different Voice, Gilligan (1993)
presents a framework for understanding women’s development. Her primary
criticism of psychological developmental theories such as Erikson’s Epigenesis
of Identity is that they are based on a male model. Gilligan contends that, for

example, intimacy development does not follow identity development for women,

34

as Erikson proposes, but the two develop concurrently for females. This is
because women formulate concepts of self in terms of relatedness to others, not
based on separation from others. A clearer sense of self comes from having a
greater sense of “otherness.” An application of this to career development was
revealed in a longitudinal study of 207 young women (O’Brien, Friedman, Tipton,
& Linn, 2000). The career aspirations of the participants in the sample changed
over the five-year period from their senior year in high school to after college
graduation. Contrary to the research hypotheses, the young female graduates
selected more traditional and less prestigious careers than the aspired careers in
high school. As the authors suggested, the change experienced by the sample

supports Gilligan’s framework for understanding women.

Holland and Eisenhart (1990) conducted a research study with twenty-three
women from two universities - one a predominantly white university and the
other a historically black university. Using ethnographic and longitudinal
methodologies over an eight-year span, the researchers sought to understand
how the women viewed their college experience in terms of career preparation,
academic strength, and development of interpersonal relationships. In chapter
12 the participants’ answers to the question “Schooling for What?” were
discussed. While some of the women stated that schoolwork did not play a role
in their choice of major or career, others fell into one of three categories of
schoolwork motivation. Women who saw the school career in instrumental terms
- it would get them a degree - were completing schoolwork for “getting over".

Women who viewed the purpose of schoolwork as “doing well” wanted to

35

...—,3“

continue their image as good students and saw college as a way to do that.
Finally, a few women in the study viewed schoolwork from the perspective of
“learning from experts”. These women perceived schoolwork as “relevant to
acquiring knowledge and skills they wished to have” (p. 180). Chapter 13 of
Educated in Romance traced the motivations behind schoolwork into career
paths. Using the phrase “marginalized career" to represent a fallback job or a
stereotypical “woman’s job”, the researchers found tendencies of certain groups
to shift their career aspirations. Each orientation to schoolwork is related to the
peer culture influence earlier discussed. Those women with the “getting over"
orientation were seen as enjoying their peers more than their schoolwork and
thus becoming a part of the world of romance. Students who entered college with
the “doing well” orientation changed their self-expectations as a result of
academic failure and ultimately succumbed to the peer culture. The women with
the “Ieaming from experts” orientation were considered to have managed the
peer culture to stay connected yet remain on a career track. The most profound
conclusion drawn from the research was that as women progressed in college
they tended to shift away from an early focus on the career preparation
embodied in college “work” and toward a focus on their peer group with its
primary emphasis on romance - thus the title of the book. While one recent
study corroborated the importance of romantic relationships to college women
(Lee & Robbins, 2000), several others have provided specific data on women’s

college and career development.

36

Luzzo (1995) examined a sample of 401 college students for gender differences
in career maturity and found that women’s scores on career-mature attitudes,
career decision-making skills, and vocational congruence were higher than the
males in the sample. Using quantitative measures of the Career Maturity
Inventory-Attitude, the Decision-Making Scale of the Career Development
Inventory, and the Vocational Preference Inventory as well as qualitative
interviews, the researcher Ieamed that women were more likely to carefully plan
every part of their career development process. Men’s career development
seemed more sporadic and less planned. Luzzo suggested that women’s higher
complexity of planning may reflect their realization of more barriers to life-long
career development due to greater variety of other life roles (marriage, child
care, etc.) Another possible explanation is simply that the women had greater
skill in articulating their plans in the qualitative interviews. A different study by
Luzzo and Hutcheson (1996) also used the Career Maturity Inventory-Attitude
and the Decision-Making Scale of the Career Development Inventory to examine
gender differences in career maturity among 115 men and women college
students. In corroboration with the 1995 study, women perceived significantly
more barriers associated with career issues than did men. Some of the specific
barriers highlighted as more salient for women included child rearing and
balancing work with family. These barriers speak to women’s holistic perspective

of a career that is integrated with a lifestyle.

Two recent studies use the framework of career self-efficacy to examine

women’s career development. Luzzo and McWhirter (2001) compared

37

perceptions of career-related barriers and coping efficacy for gender and
ethnicity. Results supported prior research on these constructs in that women
and ethnic minorities expected more career development barriers and ethnic
minorities expected more educational barriers. An interesting result was that
women and men were equally likely to expect barriers related to childcare, a
possible reflection on the “increased desire of men to participate in child rearing
activities” (p. 7). While it would seem that the issues of women’s perceptions of
careers have not changed much over time, some practitioners are attempting to
change the career counseling approaches to meet the career-development
needs of women. Sullivan and Mahalik (2000) found that a group intervention to
increase career-related self-efficacy improved career decision-making

confidence for the treatment group as compared to the control group.

While the research discussed in the previous section was exclusive to women’s
career development, no comparisons of the professional arena (for example, the
type of career) have been reviewed. However, the subgroup of interest in this
particular study contains women pursuing careers in fields related to families,
children, individuals, and their near and far environments. Many of those careers
can be categorized under the profession of Family And Consumer Sciences. The

following section will more thoroughly describe this diverse profession.

38

Family and Consumer Sciences Contextual Factors

It is fitting to follow a discussion of women with a discussion of Family and
Consumer Sciences professionals, as noted by East in 1980 in her description of

the profession:

It is female. Not only are almost all of us women, we are
very womanly. Like most women, most of us are expressive,
friendly, sociable. We are family-centered, not only by our
subject matter but also by our inclinations and our marital
status. . . . We are conservative, traditional, and while we
may be impulsive, we hold authoritarian views. (quoted in
Lindholm & Touliatos, 1995)

While the previous section reviewed literature on college women’s career and
lifestyle development, this section emphasizes the pursuit of professions that
encourage, even require, an examination of one’s values concerning the

interrelationship of career and lifestyle.

The heart of the profession now known as Family and Consumer Sciences
(FCS) has, from its origins as home economics, included a focus on the family's
values. A high degree of importance was placed on the safety, well-being, and
maximized living of the family, thereby providing the impetus for interdisciplinary
programs of study in universities nationwide, the birth of professional
organizations, and the origin of a global effect on the study of the family and
home. As the nation and the field of home economics grew and changed during
the 20th century, the definition of the field was re—examined, yet it continued to
include the values involved in household management and family interaction.

Normative images of the family have shifted as the result of worldwide and

39

nationwide phenomena, yet certain critical processes remain unchanged within
the family. Those who seek to help families improve their quality of life must
necessarily consider the role of values in family, and therefore individual,

adaptation.

This section of the chapter addresses one process with which values have been
associated in research studies — that of an individual’s choice of career or
vocation. The position of values as central to family and consumer sciences
programs will be presented with support from a variety of other authors. A review
of selected literature will offer a historical perspective on the nature of those
programs, as well as on the connections between personal values and choice of
career (operationalized as choice of major) in FCS-related fields. A discussion of
the current state of the field and recent research will move the issue into the

present.

Values and the Profession

Values have had an important position in the definition of family and consumer
sciences (home economics and/or human ecology) since the beginnings of the
field in 1902 (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993; Horn, 1981; McGregor, 1996; Schlater &
Sontag, 1994; Thomas & Smith, 1994; Vaines, 1989). The centrality of values is
related to the profession’s emphasis on the progression from values to goals to
behavior. Family and consumer science professionals have long been concerned
with changing the behavior of families and individuals, whether through

increased attention to safety and sanitation or improved parenting or

40

communication skills. Therefore, current and future professionals in the field
necessarily address values as they work towards what should be (McGregor,
1996; Thomas & Smith 1994). Although the field of family and consumer
sciences encompasses a broad variety of career possibilities, the mission of the
field includes a common set of values with which each distinct career can align in
some way (Horn, 1981). That shared value set has been present regardless of

the changes in programs nationwide over the past century.

Historical Perspective of Programs

When the field of home economics was officially established at the turn of the
twentieth century, one of the goals of its founders was to establish respected
higher education programs for women (McGrath & Johnson, 1968). Those
programs would focus on the recognized social problems of the period —
sanitation and food safety in the home. With the passing of crucial legislature
such as Smith-Lever in 1914 and Smith-Hughes in 1917, federal funding
provided the support necessary to ensure the future of the young profession
(McGrath & Johnson, 1968). The number of secondary and collegiate programs
increased rapidly in the first half of the century, and the nature of the financial

backing necessitated a teacher-preparation focus for most of those programs.

However, a response to the significant events of that time period soon led to a
broadening of the range of tOpics addressed. Two World Wars and an American
Depression emphasized other areas of home and family life in need of research

and teaching: curricula expanded to include child care, resource management,

41

decision making, and family interaction (McGrath & Johnson, 1968). Home
economics programs of the 1950’s and 1960’s were composed of increasingly
diverse subdivisions and specialties, leading to a lack of unity across the
nationwide spectrum of the field. This was the state of the field as the country
entered one of the most tumultuous decades in its history, the 1960’s. Social,
cultural, and political events inside and outside the country influenced the
functioning of the family unit, thus affecting the professions that aimed to serve

families.

Around the same time that college campuses everywhere were experiencing
values-related paradigm shifts, the field of home economics was undergoing a
self-examination as well. Professionals at influential institutions like Cornell
University and Michigan State University were considering changes in
overarching theoretical perspectives, curricula to be incorporated, even the
names of units (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). A few units approved a name change in
the late 1960’s or early 1970’s in an effort to address the challenges to the

profession (Harper, 1981 ).

However, many home economics programs did not change as rapidly as
American society seemed to change during this time. Harper (1981) reported
that by 1979, 83% of 360 programs surveyed still functioned under the name
“home economics”. At the same time, the decade of the 1970’s is distinguished
as the decade during which specialization of the field took root, leading to a
severe reduction of general home economics degrees and a significant increase

of specialty content-related degrees (Harper & Davis, 1986). These facts

42

reiterate the contradiction of a profession with a single mission under which a
multiplicity of career roles must align. However, selected research studies may

show that the plethora of careers can find commonality in shared values.

Historical Perspective of Student Values

As the home economics profession evolved and responded to societal changes,
those associated with it have attempted to understand the type of student drawn
to its careers. Several studies have addressed the characteristicsofithestudents
enrolled in home economics programs (Aadland, Dunkelberger, Molnar, &
Purcell, 1983; Lorenz, 1970; Parrish, 1975; Stinnett, et al., 1971; Stout, et al.,
1981). A review of these studies, although not exhaustive, will'present empirical

results describing limited research on values and home economics students.

Few times in the history of our nation have been more controversialthan the mid
- to late - 1960's. Specifically on college campuses, a dramatic shift seemed to
occur in student values, including increased political activism; more lenient moral
codes, and apathy towards institutional authority (Yankelovich; 1972). Questions
arose as to the nature of youth, particularly college youth. Quantitativesurveys
(Yankelovich, 1972) yielded data to support the perception of azvalues shift
among college-aged youth, yet not all students' values were-shiftingin the same
direction. In particular, the Yankelovich study found an emergence ofa set of
"new values" among a percentage (44%) of the student population; These
students admitted that their goal for their college years was to gain an

experience unrelated to a career or economic well-being. Thesmajority— of

43

students in the study, however, perceived college as an opportunity to prepare
for a career and receive economic benefits. Yankelovich's study did not provide

data comparing the values of groups of students by major or anticipated career.

The following section highlights studies that provide insight into the values of
students preparing for home economics-related careers during the time from the
late 1960’s to the late 1980’s. Research from the 1970’s decade will reinforce the
previously mentioned themes of values shifts among college students, holistic,
liberal approaches to college education, and social activism for students in home
economics programs. Research from the 1980’s decade will reveal the shifts that
occurred within the profession in terms of increased enrollment and the re-
naming of departments or units. Students majoring in “human ecology” or
“human and family sciences” rather than “home economics” during the mid to
late 1980’s had arrived at that choice of major through a variety of influences,
and were experiencing considerable disparity in their views of themselves as

future professionals.

Research from the 1970’s Decade

Lorenz (1970) surveyed home economics students at Michigan State University
in order to gain a greater understanding of their values and attitudes. The
purpose of this study was to inform the curriculum revision and name change
activities taking place within the unit. During the academic year 1968-69, entering
freshmen and transfer students into home economics programs were surveyed

for the perceptions of those not yet fully acquainted with the programs (entering

44

students), as well as home economics majors who had already been enrolled in
the major (involved students). The home economics majors’ responses were
compared to a similar sample of non-home economics majors at MSU. All
participants completed the College Student Questionnaires (CSQ) and the
Rokeach Values Survey (RVS). Although the sample was a convenience
sample, it was considered reasonably representative. Participants were
subdivided by major for additional comparison - teaching, retailing, interior
design, foods and nutrition, and a composite subgroup (general home

economics, community service, communications, general textiles and clothing).

The CSQ collected demographic data as well as interests and attitudes. From
this instrument the researcher obtained data on the greatest influence on the
participants’ choice of major. Overall, high school teachers and mothers proved
to be the influence most frequently reported for entering students, while adult
acquaintances and close friends exerted greater influence on involved students,
although some variation among majors existed. An interesting note was that
although these students expressed a greater concern for social issues, they did
not expect to be as useful to society as the university comparison sample. The
CSQ responses help to inform as to the nature of the participants, but the RVS is

most directly related to the values of university students.

The Rokeach Values Survey assesses prioritization of two sets of eighteen
values, deemed Terminal and Instrumental. Terminal values are end states of
existence, while Instrumental values are modes of conduct (Lorenz, 1970).

Results of the RVS were analyzed to compare the home economics women

45

students to a Michigan State University cohort of women, to compare entering
students to involved students, and to compare the individual majors to the entire
home economics group. Analysis revealed that home economics students
ranked the values of social recognition, courage, freedom, and wisdom
significantly lower than did the university-wide MSU cohort. Home economics
students also ranked self-respect and family security significantly higher than the
comparable MSU sample. When the subgroups” value rankings were compared
to the whole home economics group, interesting differences appeared for both
entering and involved students. For example, the instrumental value courageous
was ranked low by entering nutrition students but ranked high by involved
nutrition students. A wide variety of terminal value rankings was seen among
entering students’ subgroups, but involved students reported more similar
rankings for the terminal value set with only one value, mature love, showing a
significant difference for the interior design subgroup. Lorenz’ study was primarily
descriptive in nature, providing information intended to assist in understanding

the nature of home economics students at one university in the late 1960’s.

Parrish (1975) conducted a similar study with Michigan State University students
after the name of was changed to the College of Human Ecology and following
the proposed curricular revisions noted in Lorenz’ work. Unlike the previously
discussed research, Parrish’s study focused almost exclusively on the results of
the Rokeach Values Survey and how students’ values may have changed from
1968-69 to 1974-75. Parrish collected data from students in four consecutive

academic years. Data were analyzed for comparison of the 1974-75 group to the

46

1968-69 group (Lorenz, 1970), and to compare by major, college department,
and classification for the cohorts from 1971 to 1975. Although Parrish’s findings
are extensive, comparing subsets of data from multiple years, this discussion will
be limited to the results that extend and illuminate Lorenz’ work. The study noted
significant changes in the values of students as a whole from the 1968-69 group
(in Lorenz’ study) to the 1974-75 group. For example, the sample as a whole in
1974-75 was less likely to be concerned with national security than the previous
(1968-69) group. Parrish’s conclusion was that Human Ecology students were
more focused on “micro group” issues (family security, self development) than
“macro group” issues. However, similarities existed between the 1968-69 and
1974-75 groups. The values self-respect and family security were given priority in
the hierarchy for both samples. Additionally, similar to Lorenz’ study, the values
of freshmen varied significantly from major to major, while the values of seniors
were more consistent across majors. This suggests one of two possibilities: that
a change in values might occur during or as a result of the college experience, or
that students switched majors to units other than Human Ecology (and vice
versa) due to greater clarification of their values as they matured, creating a
more homogenous group of seniors. The findings are also an interesting contrast
to Pascarella and Terenzini's premise that values related to occupations do not

change during college (1991).

Parrish compared data of value rankings by department and discovered
significant variations. Family & Child Sciences (Child Development & Teaching

majors) had the highest agreement on the order of the hierarchies, and Human

47

Environment and Design (Clothing & Textiles, Interior Design, and Human
Environment & Design majors) had the lowest agreement. Overall, every
department decreased in variance from 1971 to 1975, with only family security
separating the departments in the last year of analysis. Parrish’s study did not
compare Human Ecology students’ data for the years 1971-1975 to a similar

sample of university students of other majors.

In the same era as the Lorenz and Parrish dissertations (April of 1970) but
involving a different approach, a group of Oklahoma State University students
provided information to researchers as to their perceptions of the home
economics profession and major (Stinnett, et al., 1971). A sample of 282
undergraduates included students in a variety of majors across the university,
from engineering to business to home economics (although home economics
majors constituted the smallest proportion of the sample at 3%). Participants
completed a self-administered questionnaire assessing their exposure to and
perceptions of the home economics profession and students enrolled in majors
associated with it. The majority of respondents (67%) believed that the
profession was “primarily for women and a few men” (p. 608). The bulk of the
participants (70%) also were familiar with the diversity of professions associated

with the profession, rather than just one professional image or career identity.

Of greatest relevance to the issue at hand were the respondents’ perceptions of
the home economics student. Among other perceptions, the results indicated the
perception of the home economics major as “informed concerning world affairs”

(43%), competent, and neither extremely conservative or liberal in views (no

48

percentages reported). These perceptions can be interpreted as implying a
values structure. Although this report did not break down the responses by
enrollment subgroups (i.e., engineering, education), it offers a potentially
interesting view of others’ ideas of what home economics professionals find

valuable, leading to questions about the congruence of values and behavior.

Research from the 1980’s Decade

At the end of the 70’s, enrollment in home economics programs was
substantially greater than in previous eras (Aadland, et al., 1983). Additionally,
as previously highlighted, units nationwide were undergoing changes in labeling
or configuration. Selected research conducted and reported in the decade of the

80’s is examined in the next several paragraphs.

Two quantitative studies utilized survey research conducted under a research
project initiated by the USDA. The project examined “human resource
development” data from numerous universities in the Southern Region.
Participating universities fell under one of two categories: 1862 land-grant
colleges (predominantly white enrollment when established) and 1890 land-grant
colleges (predominantly black enrollment when established). Both studies are
discussed for their contributions to the literature associated with home economic
students’ values, although the scope of the research project was considerably

broader.

Stout, et al. (1981) compared the factors that influenced choice of home

economics as a major for black women in 1890 colleges and white women in

49

1862 colleges. The participants were asked to quantify the influence of 1)
significant others and 2) home economics curricula-related experiences on their
choice of home economics as a major. Researchers also analyzed social origin
variables (parents’ educational level, occupational status, and political
preference) for their possible correlation to choice of major. The goal of the
analysis was to identify those variables with the potential to discriminate between
the two groups of women. Researchers reported that in their sample, black home
economics students were more likely than white home economics students to be
from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. However, Stout and colleagues
suggested that both groups perceived the possibility of upward mobility through a
home economics career. When the data were examined for the influence of
significant others on the choice of home economics as a major, black home
economics students were more influenced by family members and high school
counselors. Among the potential home economics curricula-related influences,
taking a high school home economics course had a greater effect for black
students than for white students - a fact the researchers seemed to find a natural

conclusion given the influence of the counselors.

The reported results of Stout and colleagues offer little information about values
constructs as they were identified in previously discussed studies. However, the
data do suggest that in one sample and for one subgroup, the decision to major
in home economics was most influenced by factors or events prior to entering
college. When this research is considered alongside the values literature

addressing the effect of the college experience on personal and work-related

50

values, this researcher is cautioned against making assumptions about the

applicability of a values-structuring theory or instrument.

A second study reports results of the USDA Regional Research Project with a
slightly different focus. Aadland, et al. (1983) examined data for similarities and
dissimilarities among students in the various majors within home economics. The
majority of the home economics respondents were classified into one of the
following: interior design, family and child development, foods and nutrition,
home economics education, fashion design, and general home economics,
these majors being fairly consistent across the 13 universities included in the
study. Similarly to the Stout, et al. (1981) study, Aadland, et al. collected data
reflecting social origin, influence of significant others on choice of major, and
influence of curricula-related experiences such as high school or college events.
Additionally, the later study examined the participants’ reason for choosing

major.

When the data were analyzed according to individual major or career track within
home economics, a few notable patterns were revealed. High school
experiences explained the maximum variance (still a small percentage) only in
the home economics education and general home economics majors. College
experiences significantly explained a small portion of the variance for every
major except general home economics. The effect of significant others on the
choice of major significantly explained at least some variance for five of the
majors, excluding textiles and fashion design, with the greatest variance

explained for home economics education and general home economics.

51

The study results most directly related to the issue of values were the reasons
for choosing the major (nine were selected for analysis). These reasons
apparently accounted for more of the explained variance than the other factors
examined. Every reason distinguished at least one major, but three surfaced as
important to the most groups: the desire to help others, the desire to insure
earning a good income, and successful prior home economics experiences. Two
of these reasons, helping others and insuring income, have been related to
values constructs in previous studies (Lorenz, 1970; Parrish, 1975). Other
values-related reasons such as to prepare for a career and a chance to make
better grades significantly explained variance in at least three of the majors.
Based on the data analysis, the researchers constructed “profiles” of each major

included in the study that may provide a comparison for future studies.

The third study selected for brief discussion of research in the 1980’s is directed
towards the debate between specialist and generalist preparation for home
economics careers. Although the research is not directed towards understanding
the values of students, it does address issues related to the similarities and
differences among groups in the profession. Butler, Ade-Ridder, Rudge, &
Sensbach (1987) addressed the “perceived philosophical difference between
those with a more general background (generalists) and those with specialized
training (specialists)” (p. 13). The researchers questioned administrators, faculty,
and students about whether they personally identify with the generalist or
specialist label, and found that the sample segmented into seven percent

generalists, thirty percent specialists, and 62 percent a combination. However, all

52

three groups reported that the primary mission of the profession should be the
welfare of families. When questioned about the importance of accreditation to
market programs, more respondents (over 80% in each group) valued
accreditation by specialized agencies than accreditation by a general
professional institution like the American Home Economics Association (about
50% in each group). These data suggest that distinction among majors and
career paths was valued more than similarity across majors, or a single
professional identity as a home economist. Additionally, the study indicates the
perceived relevance of accreditation to professional preparation and career

development.

The historical context of career and lifestyle development in college students has
provided a foundation of understanding the process of arriving at the present
time. In the decade since these studies examined the nature and concerns of
future home economics (or human ecology) professionals, changes have
occurred. The next section will describe the current context for the topic,

informed by recent literature.

Current State of the Field

The discussion of the current state of the field begins with a prediction made in
the early 1980’s. Horn and East (1982) imagined that the future could include
several possible scenarios with particular challenges for home economics
professionals helping families and individuals - increased technology could offer

more information and more choices, resources could diminish or increase to the

53

point of overwhelming the consumer. The authors believed that for the
professional the challenge would be to see problems “in terms of human values,
human relationships, and potential impacts on families” (p. 16). However, Horn
and East also cautioned that the profession as a whole needed to resolve
ongoing identity issues before being truly prepared to help families. Recent
scholarly writings indicate that the identity of the profession is still a critical point

of discussion, as seen in this section.

In October 1993 representatives of professional home economics organizations
met in Scottsdale, Arizona to forge a new identity for the profession (Simerly,
Ralston, Harriman, & Taylor, 2000). The National Task Force on Professional
Unity and Identity overwhelmingly accepted “family and consumer sciences” as
the name to replace “home economics”. The participants also adopted a
conceptual framework for the next century that would “empower individuals,
strengthen families, and build strong communities” (p. 80). The Scottsdale
Initiative responded to several years of scholarly discourse about the identity and
future direction of the field (Richards, 2000). Although identity issues are still a
part of daily professional interaction, scholars also are necessarily concerned
with the demographic and cultural needs of the public to be helped (Clausell,

1998; Firebaugh & Miller, 2000; Jax, 2000).

Clausell (1998) highlighted the considerable demographic shifts occurring in
America, including the increase of Hispanic and Asian populations. These shifts
present the challenge of recognizing each culture’s valuable contributions, as

well as recruiting diverse faculty and students to the field. Firebaugh and Miller

54

(2000) echo Clausell and note that globalization of curricula to incorporate
international study opportunities and visiting faculty will play a key role in
diversifying family and consumer sciences departments. Leadership within a
global society can benefit from critical theory, according to Jax (2000) - by
empowering others, following as well as leading, and promoting social justice

and democracy.

Current literature presents a future for family and consumer sciences that is full
of new opportunities and old issues. If one word were to be chosen to express
the modern challenges to family and consumer sciences, some professionals
might agree on the word diversity. Others might believe that the term unity best
expresses the movement of the new era. Perhaps the phrase unity through
diversity will capture the theme of the literature chosen for this essay. Implicit in
the discussion are the values of the profession and the professionals who
choose it. The next few paragraphs will present a more concise picture of recent

values research within the field.
Recent Research on Family and Consumer Science Students

A small group of family and consumer sciences students from around the
country shared their perceptions of the profession for the Millennium Issue of the
Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences (Jenkins & Mason, 2000). The
students responded to questions concerning their motivation for choosing the
major, their professional goals, and their view of the profession‘s future. Most of

the group expressed a desire to help families and individuals and the variety of

55

ways to do so presented by the profession as the impetus for entering the field.
The students also expressed views of the future that include proactive
approaches to helping families in a field that will grow as society’s needs change.
The informal anecdotes from this small group will set the stage for the following
literature review of three quantitative studies assessing the nature of students

preparing to be the leaders of the field in the next millennium.

The first study to be discussed focused on retailing students’ values and their
relationship to career or major choice (Shim, Warrington, & Goldsberry, 1999).
This study intended to determine the causal flow of values to attitudes to
behaviors, in support of Homer and Kahle’s theory that values indirectly influence
behavior through attitudes. Participants (723) completed surveys adapted from
Kahle’s List of Values (LOV) to measure self-actualizing and social affiliation
constructs. The researchers were testing a hierarchy model of retail career
choice to discover self-actualizing and social affirmation values affected the
intrinsic enjoyment, extrinsic compensation, and lifestyle flexibility components of
work (attitudes), thus influencing an individual to choose retailing as a career.
The findings indicated that self-actualizing values influenced intrinsic enjoyment
and extrinsic compensation attitudes, while social affiliation values influenced
intrinsic, extrinsic, and lifestyle flexibility attitudes. All three attitudes then
influenced choice of retail career, with intrinsic enjoyment (representing variety of
responsibility, intellectual challenge, work environment) having a significantly
higher influence on retail career choice. Shim and colleagues implied that these

findings could be useful for recruiting and curriculum design strategies.

56

In a second study on the nature of students and career choices, a group of 322
students majoring in family and consumer sciences (freshmen, juniors, and
seniors) provided information on choice of major in the context of career
development theory (Mumme, 1997). Participants completed a demographic
questionnaire and the Self-Directed Search, a career assessment based on
Holland’s theory of career selection. Holland proposed that six basic personality
types — Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional -
form the foundations for an individual’s approach to work and careers.
Personality types have a preferred environment, thus leading to a more ideal
match for career choice. Holland devised an Occupations Finder to match
careers to personality combinations (three together forming an occupational
code), and the Self Directed Search instrument assists in identifying one’s three
dominant personality areas. Holland believed that an individual would feel more
secure and comfortable in his or her career choice if there was a high
congruence of dominant personality types and occupational code. Mumme’s
study intended to determine whether the sample of students exhibited the
personality types most commonly associated with the eleven different majors, as

denoted by occupational code.

Data were analyzed for “hit rate”, the term used to express the match of the most
dominant personality type to the first letter of the occupational code, indicating
higher congruence. Although the majority of the participants were compatible
with the first letter of their code, hit rate percentages varied across a wide range.

Majors with the lowest hit rates included Interior Design (34.6%) and Fashion

57

Design (40.0%). Majors with the highest hit rates included General Home
Economics — Teacher Certification (80.0%), Human Development (82.5%), and
Family Studies (89.2%). Other majors (Early Childhood Education, Family
Financial Planning, Food and Nutrition — Dietetics, General Home Economics,
Merchandising, and Restaurant, Hotel and Institutional Management) reported
congruence hit rates between 50% and 71.4%. The percentages can indicate the
wide variety of congruence of personality types and “ideal” major choice, as well
as the wide variety of personalities within each major. Additional data analysis
(gathered from an open-ended question) revealed that persons more than
events influenced students to choose a major in family and consumer sciences,
with “self" as the most frequently reported person of influence. This finding may
indicate a tendency for students to rely on internal values and beliefs to make a

career choice.

In 1995, Lindholm and Touliatos published a research study on personality
characteristics and choice of major for 296 undergraduate females in home
economics degree programs at one university. The participants completed the
Attitudes Toward Women Scale and the California Psychological Inventory as
measures of personality. Additionally, they provided demographic data and
permission for researchers to obtain grade-point average information from the
university. The researchers found that students who majored in more family-
oriented and traditional programs like family and child studies and vocational
home economics education held more conservative views of women’s roles and

had lower scores for extraversion and social confidence. Interior design majors

58

held more liberal views of women, and along with fashion merchandising and
nutrition and dietetics majors scored higher on extraversion and social
confidence. No significant differences were seen among majors for the
characteristics of conformity or flexibility, although these typically have not

explained much variance in the scales in other research.

A fourth study was based on the career maturity aspect of college students’
identity formation (Dawson-Threat, 1993). Chickering’s (1969) theory of college
student development was derived from Erikson’s identity development concepts.
Chickering described “vectors” or one-directional paths of movement along which
college students may progress as they mature. Seven vectors identify the
domains of development that may occur sequentially or concurrently -
Developing Competence, Managing Emotions, Developing Autonomy,
Establishing Identity, Freeing Interpersonal Relationships, Clarifying Purpose,
and Developing Integrity. According to Chickering, specific tasks are associated
with each vector, and a lack of development along one vector may hinder
development along the others. Some theorists criticized Chickering’s 1969 theory
and Erikson’s work as not representative of female development. Dawson-Threat
chose to examine both sex-role identity development and career maturity by
having participants complete the BEM Sex-Role Inventory published in 1981 and
portions of the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory (SDTLI)
published by Winston and Miller in 1987. Only those SDTLI items addressing
tasks associated with the “Clarifying Purpose” vector were analyzed. Dawson-

Threat intended to compare the SDTLI and BEM scores for males in male-

59

dominated majors and females in female—dominated majors, looking for

similarities or differences.

Males majoring in Business or Engineering (n = 153) and females majoring in
Education or Family and Consumer Sciences (n = 243) completed the
instruments and a demographic questionnaire. Only some of the results will be
discussed here to emphasize applicability to family and consumer sciences
majors. Females in “sex-appropriate” majors (female-dominated) had higher
femininity scores than those in “sex-inappropriate” majors, but males’ masculinity
scores did not differ by major. Approximately half the sample chose their major
during their sophomore or junior year and slightly less than half never changed
their choice of major. Twice as many males as females decided their major in
their first year of college. These demographic facts have implications for the
applicability of Chickering’s developmental theory, which believes that movement
along the Clarifying Purpose vector occurs later in a college student’s
development. When the STDLI scores were analyzed, the females showed more
evidence of career maturity, as did students in female-dominated majors
(probably because these had more females in them anyway). Dawson-Threat
linked this fact to previous literature indicating that choice of major may be
influenced by the value one places on pursuing a gender-appropriate career, as
well as estimated probability of success in that career. These concepts are
represented in other discussions of values, as well (Aadland, et al., 1983;

Lorenz, 1970).

60

Chapter Summary

The preceding chapter has attempted to lay the foundation for the proposed
study by placing it in its literature context. The issues of career choice and
development, specifically choosing a career that accommodates lifestyle goals,
are relevant for many age groups and have been studied across the lifespan.
However, those decisions take on unique meaning for college aged young
adults. Choosing and planning for vocation and avocation is one of several
developmental tasks for college students; therefore that choice process is best

viewed holistically, as Chickering and Reisser’s Vector Theory proposes.

When the scope of career choice is narrowed to one professional realm such as
Family and Consumer Sciences, historical and current perspectives illuminate
the nature of the choice as well as the chooser. Numerous studies have shown a
series of shifts in the nature of students pursuing FCS careers, from generalists
to specialists, from gender-specific to slightly more gender-neutral, and from
politically active to politically neutral and back again. The examination of FCS
students also corroborates some of the ideas in Chickering’s theory in that
freshmen are less sure of their future in FCS than seniors. This could be
attributed to several factors, whether the developmental processes associated
with college or the value-laden focus of FCS coursework. The present study,
described in greater detail in the following chapters, attempted to provide even
more insight into the career and lifestyle development of female FCS

undergraduates.

61

Chapter 3. METHODOLOGY

The aim of the proposed study was to investigate the career and lifestyle
behaviors within the context of college student development for female Family
and Consumer Sciences undergraduates. This chapter describes the methods
used, including the research questions, conceptual framework, variables studied
and their conceptual and operational definitions, and corresponding hypotheses,

research design, sample description, procedures, and instrumentation.
Research Objectives

The present study aimed to explore the career-related and lifestyle-related
aspects of college student development for female Family and Consumer
Sciences undergraduates. The goal of the study was to explore relationships
between college student characteristics such as classification, point of entry into
the current major, and certification track (representing career choice), and the
outcome of career and lifestyle development. Career and lifestyle development is
demonstrated by behaviors that reflect values related to one’s vision of the
future. In this study, career and lifestyle development was measured as a
composite construct represented by career behaviors, lifestyle behaviors,
educational involvement, and cultural participation. In order to assess the
feasibility of the design of the present study, a pilot study was conducted in
February and March of 2001. The pilot study provided insights into revisions to
the research design, which have been incorporated throughout the methodology

section and discussed accordingly.

62

Research Questions

The primary research questions for the study were:

1. Are there significant relationships between classification and career and
lifestyle development (represented by career behaviors, educational
involvement, lifestyle behaviors, cultural participation) for female FCS

undergraduates?

2. If so, how do women differ by classification level?

3. Does the timing of choosing a major (in terms of when in the college
career the major was declared) affect career and lifestyle development for

female FCS undergraduates?

4. If so, how do students differ by point of entry (i.e., first quarter freshman,

middle of sophomore year) into a particular major?

5. What is the interaction effect of classification and point of entry into

major?

6. Are there significant relationships between choice of major (distinguished
by certification procedure) and career and lifestyle development for female

FCS undergraduates?

7. How does development vary among concentrations among majors by

certification track or non-certification track?

63

8. Do family background characteristics such as mother’s or father’s
education level or number of family members with a similar career affect

the career and lifestyle development for female FCS undergraduates?

9. What is the interaction effect of family background characteristics on

career and lifestyle development?

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework for the study is shown in Figure 2. The framework is
an extension and narrower view of the theoretical framework, exhibiting elements
of the contributing theories of Family and Human Ecology Perspectives and the
Vector Theory of College Student Development. The Vectors labeled Developing
Purpose and Developing Integrity are intertwined, showing an interrelationship of
progress along both vectors. Developmental outcomes are represented by the
dependent variable of career and lifestyle development. This is a composite
representation of the integration of career behaviors, including educational
involvement, and lifestyle behaviors, including cultural participation.
Certification track as a representation of career choice is one independent
variable and is believed to be closely associated with progress along the
developing purpose vector. Classification is a second independent variable and
represents the time aspect of development, as does point of entry into major.
Family background characteristics of mother’s education level, father’s
education level, and number of family members with a similar career are

independent variables examined for their effect on career and lifestyle

54

development, as well. All independent variables are examined within the context

of the developmental tasks that affect the dependent outcomes.

65

Figure 2: Conceptual Model

.mocw .0953 .>> 0:0.00 ”3:059:00 roof. .0 5.55.0005

.88: .. .580: 0:0 ..>> .< 950.5 0558.050 20030 002.8 ..o 08,: .28?

.6me .w .5. 53:8 0:0 .5. ..2 .5025 ”020000200 30.08 :0Ea... 0:0 2.50...F

 

:0me won 0.50005 :0 0005.000 :3 00000.05 3.0:. 0.5 “:0 50 “Set
:06: 500.00 8 55:00.: 50¢ 09.0.: 2.0050 :0 :0000S0006
....:0qu.0>00 0..E0§0 :0 0E... :0 .095

 

A

330:0: 0:0
00:_0> :00500 00:35:00 0:32:00
.00:_0> m:_~..0:00._00 0:0 m:.~_:0E:: I
N..0u00> 3.32:. m:.00.0>0o

-
o
n
a
n.
.c I.u....-0unnoo...uouu.o...uua

0
...-...

     

 

.... 00-.-nun-uuuuuuuununuunuunnfl
m 50050:: .2530 m
.- I.-....-.::-n........uuue

.. baptism Ebmchj

\ rumemorcmflfiwru
w... . a m 53> -
00:00:00 002.00 ..0. «:0E00_0>00 :. s cowuwmkwfihmfimm. _.
.. W.mfihmrfiu...upwununmm..W 000.50.... 0000.05 m..0~00> 9.0.0 E06305. M. 50083. 30505. n

. ..... . h w , HLuz...o..mx..umn 2.5m“— .—
’ $5030 000.00 _

rlllllll

 

. \

 

    
     

 

 
   

g
”0:030:000 0.3003.

: .. 0:0 ..0:0=000>0 ..0:0=000>

acmEm20>0o :00500 00:0.00 0 0:32:00 I

0. 00:.— 0c0 .0300 0.200> 0000.50 0:30.050

 

 

0.50:6 08:98 0:50:00 0:0 2.50“. 0.0E0u. 0.0002902: .0“.
0056.98 0820 000:8 .o 0280 05 55.;
203023 0.3000... 0:0 00.00 .0 5:90.03 :<

66

Definitions

Several disciplines and theoretical backgrounds contributed to the conceptual
framework of the' study, and each has its own set of vocabulary. The following
definitions create a consistent terminology base for the research design and

implementation.

Career and Lifestyle Development

Conceptual definition.

Career and lifestyle development refers to the integration of values and behavior
related to work and lifestyle (Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Winston, et al., 1999b).
A college student develops this interrelationship when the career-preparation

and lifestyle-development behaviors of today align with the self-reported vision of

the future.

Operational definition.

The measure of career and lifestyle development was derived from the
Establishing and Clarifying Purpose Task of the SDTLA (Winston, et al., 1999b).
This task is composed of all the items found in the Career Planning, Educational
Involvement, Lifestyle Planning, and Cultural Participation Subtasks of Form 1.99
of the instrument (described in the following definitions). Each of the subtasks
has an average score for the included items (see Appendix D, Analysis Grid, for
details of which items belong to each subtask). The Establishing and Clarifying

Purpose Task averages the subtask scores to provide the composite measure.

67

Career Behaviors

Conceptual definition.

Career behaviors refer to conscious efforts to prepare for eventual employment
(Winston, et al., 1999b). The phrase “career planning” is often used to describe
these behaviors. Because the term “planning" connotes either a concrete set of
steps to be carried out or very specific actions as implementation or outcome of
those steps (i.e., a resume on file with the college placement office), the term
“behaviors” is substituted. The study seeks to examine the behaviors that
participants perceive are career planning-oriented, yet no direct evidence of

“planning” will be collected.

College students exhibit career behaviors by identifying and enrolling in courses
with content that contributes to employability, often necessarily declaring a major
or program of study. Career goals and objectives are evidence of a student’s
career thinking and actions beyond the coursework, should be evaluated against
lifestyle goals and objectives for congruence. Individuals display career
behaviors by working with university personnel who can guide them through the
career choice process, help them locate and successfully complete internships
or practice, and expose them to employment activities and issues (Chickering &

Reisser, 1993).

Operational definition.

Scores on the Career Planning subtask (14 items) of Form 1.99 of the Student

Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA). Items assess level of

68

development in career exploration and decision-making via true/false or multiple-

choice weighted responses.

Lifestyle Behaviors

Conceptual definition.

Lifestyle behaviors address the degree to which an individual’s values, purpose,
and personal lifestyle goals synthesize to form a certain direction for their future
(Winston, et al., 1999b). It includes clarified or well-understood personal values
and congruence of behavior with those values (Chickering & Reisser, 1993).
Lifestyle behaviors provide vision for life away from work yet include an

acknowledgement of expected career roles.

Operational definition.

Scores on the Lifestyle Planning subtask (13 items) of Form 1.99 of the SDTLA.
Items assess level of development in lifestyle Visioning via true/false or multiple-

choice weighted responses.

Educational Involvement

Conceptual definition.

Educational Involvement refers to participation in activities directly related to
academic preparation. These activities are viewed as supporting and in direct
connection to career behaviors. The involved student has declared an academic

major after careful consideration, meets regularly with an academic advisor,

69

attends lectures or seminars that are not required, and makes individual efforts

to ensure they are maximizing their academic resources.

Operational definition.

Scores on the Educational Involvement subtask (14 items) of Form 1.99 of the
Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA). Items assess
level of development in academic exploration, participation, and self-analysis via

true/false or multiple-choice weighted responses.

Cultural Participation

Conceptual definition.

Cultural participation behaviors include interest and active involvement in
traditional cultural activities (ballets, museums), new cultural activities such as
ethnic fairs, and positive use of leisure time in pursuit of hobbies (Winston, et al.,

1999b).

Operational definition.

Scores on the Cultural Participation subtask (10 items) of Form 1.99 of the
SDTLA. Items assess level of development in cultural involvement via true/false

or multiple-choice weighted responses.

70

Classification

Conceptual definition.

In the traditional university system, students are “classified” by the number of
semester hours accrued. Freshmen have earned from 0 to 30 hours,
sophomores have earned from 31 to 60 hours, juniors have earned from 61 to 90

hours, and seniors have earned 91 hours or more.

Operational definition.

Response to item E on Form 1.99 of the SDTLA. Participants chose from

freshman, sophomore, junior, or senior.

Point of Entry into Major

Conceptual definition.

The average college student may change academic majors once or twice before
graduating. Point of entry into major measured at what point in the college career

the participant declared the current specialization.

Operational definition.

Response to added item on demographic page. Participants indicated the
quarter in which they enrolled, declared, or switched to their current major by
placing an “X” on a continuum spanning four years of college, segregated by

time units (quarters at the university from which the sample was drawn).

71

Certification track (Career Choice)

Conceptual definition.

Students enrolled in a Family and Consumer Sciences unit may receive a degree
that has a broad title such as “Merchandising and Consumer Affairs” though they
specialize in a particular area such as “Apparel Merchandising”. Some of the
specializations such as Child Life, Early Childhood Education, Family and
Consumer Sciences Education, and Nutrition and Dietetics have a distinct
certification procedure associated with preparing for the career, such as a
teacher certification examination or registered dietitian examination. Others such
as Consumer Affairs, Family Studies, and Merchandising do not have a
certification procedure associated with them. The present study requested that
the participants record the specialty area or concentration in order to gain a

better understanding of their career self-awareness.

Operational definition.

Response to added item on demographic page. Participants chose from the
available specializations, called “concentrations”, within the degree programs in
the FCS unit. The concentrations were grouped by the researcher into two
categories - those with certification procedures and those without certification

procedures.

72

Other Definitions

Human Ecology majors. College students pursuing programs of study
governed by the Human Ecology unit, often the name attached to the area of the
university emphasizing Family and Consumer Sciences professions. The
degrees to be obtained by these students prepare them to work in FCS
professions that strive to improve the quality of life for families and individuals. In
the population of interest, HE majors included Child Life, Consumer Affairs, Early
Childhood Education, Family and Consumer Sciences Education, Family

Studies, Merchandising, and Nutrition and Dietetics.
Research Assumptions

The following assumptions are acknowledged for the present study:

1. College-aged young adults (17 to 25) attempt to accomplish
developmental tasks relevant to their stage in life in order to feel

successful.

2. The accomplishment of one developmental task builds on the

achievement of prior tasks and enables achievement of future tasks.

3. Issues of career and lifestyle planning are salient for college-aged young

adufls.

4. Self-report behaviors can indicate progress toward successfully

completing developmental tasks.

73

5. Data were reported as accurately as possible for the level of self-

awareness of the participants.

6. Participants had a working knowledge of the terms used in the instrument
(i.e., the use of the traditional terms to designate class standing such as
freshman, sophomore, etc.) or they sought to clarify lack of understanding

by asking the administrator of the instrument.

7. Participants were “normal” college students with fairly representative

developmental characteristics.

Research Limitations

The following limitations are acknowledged for the present study:
1. The respondents were drawn from a convenience sample.

2. The instrument collected self-report data. Self-report data have limitations,
although the response bias scale incorporated into the instrument

attempts to discount these limitations.

3. The instrument had 153 items. Its length may have discouraged
participants with reading disabilities or attention-span challenges (one
participant only completed 100 SDTLA items in the time allotted, before
turning in the entire instrument). The authors of the instrument strongly
recommend that the entire instrument be completed in one session rather

than taken home or completed at another time.

74

4. The researcher administered the instrument in a classroom setting rather
than a one-on-one counseling setting with an established relationship
between participant and counselor. Although the instrument has
documented research validity, its benefits are greater when it can be used

as a counseling tool as well (Winston, et al., 1999b).

5. The procedures were specifically designed to include courses with content
relevant to the constructs being examined. In order to increase sample
size the researcher extended the data collection procedures to include a
broader variety of courses within the Human Ecology unit. However, with
the exception of one course, Family and Child Studies 201 (Life Cycle
Development), all of the courses from which the sample came had at least

some emphasis on career development and decision-making.

Hypotheses

Several hypotheses were proposed to answer the research questions examining
classification, timing of declaring a major, certification procedures associated
with a major or career choice, and family background characteristics. These
hypotheses reflected the conceptual framework of the proposed study as well as
the feedback incorporated from the pilot study with regards to the time dimension

of college student development related to point of entry into the major.

75

Research Question #1 : Classification

What is the relationship between classification and career and lifestyle
development (represented by career behaviors, educational involvement,
lifestyle behaviors, and cultural participation) for FCS female
undergraduates?

Career and Lifestyle Development

H01: The career and lifestyle development for FCS female undergraduates will

not differ significantly based on classification.

HA1: The higher the classification of the FCS female undergraduate, the
greater the career and lifestyle development (seniors > juniors > sophomores >

freshmen).

Career Behaviors

H02: The career behaviors of female undergraduates will not differ significantly

based on classification.

HA2: The higher the classification of the FCS female undergraduate, the
greater the development of career behaviors (seniors > juniors > sophomores >

freshmen).

Educational Involvement

H03: The educational involvement of female undergraduates will not differ

significantly based on classification.

76

HA3: The higher the classification of the FCS female undergraduate, the
greater the educational involvement (seniors > juniors > sophomores >

freshmen).

Lifestyle Behaviors
H04: The lifestyle behaviors of female undergraduates will not differ

significantly based on classification.

HA4: The higher the classification of the FCS female undergraduate, the
greater the development of lifestyle behaviors (seniors > juniors > sophomores >
freshmen).

Cultural Participation

H05: The cultural participation of female undergraduates will not differ

significantly based on classification.

HA5: The higher the classification of the FCS female undergraduate, the

greater the cultural participation (seniors > juniors > sophomores > freshmen).

77

Research Question #2: Point of Entry into Major

What is the relationship between point of entry into major and career and
lifestyle development (represented by career behaviors, educational
involvement, lifestyle behaviors, and cultural participation) for FCS female
undergraduates?

Career And Lifestyle Development

H06: The career and lifestyle development for FCS female undergraduates will

not differ significantly based on point of entry into major.

HA5: The earlier in the college career that the FCS female undergraduate
entered the current major, the greater the career and lifestyle development
(freshman year > sophomore year > junior year > senior year).

Career Behaviors

H07: The career behaviors of FCS female undergraduates will not differ

significantly regardless of the point of entry into the major.

HA7: The earlier in the college career that the FCS female undergraduate
entered the current major, the greater the development of career behaviors
(freshman year > sophomore year > junior year > senior year).

Educational Involvement

Hog: The educational involvement of FCS female undergraduates will not differ

significantly regardless of the point of entry into the major.

78

HA3: The earlier in the college career that the FCS female undergraduate
entered the current major, the greater the educational involvement (freshman

year > sophomore year > junior year > senior year).
Lifestyle Behaviors
Hog: The lifestyle behaviors of FCS female undergraduates will not differ

significantly regardless of the point of entry into the major.

HA9: The earlier in the college career that the FCS female undergraduate
entered the current major, the greater the development of lifestyle behaviors

(freshman year > sophomore year > junior year > senior year).

Cultural Participation

H010: The cultural participation of FCS female undergraduates will not differ

significantly regardless of the point of entry into the major.

HMO: The earlier in the college career that the FCS female undergraduate
entered the current major, the greater the cultural participation (freshman year >

sophomore year > junior year > senior year).

79

Research Question #3: Interaction of Classification and Point of Entry

What is the interaction of the effects of classification and point of entry
into major on career and lifestyle development (represented by career
behaviors, educational involvement, lifestyle behaviors, and cultural
participation) for FCS female undergraduates?

Career And Lifestyle Development

H011: The effect of classification on career and lifestyle development will not
interact significantly with the effect of point of entry into major on career and

lifestyle development for FCS female undergraduates.

HA": The effect of classification on career and lifestyle development will interact
significantly with the effect of point of entry into major on career and lifestyle

development for FCS female undergraduates.

Career Behaviors

H012: The effect of classification on career behaviors will not interact
significantly with the effect of point of entry into major on career behaviors for

FCS female undergraduates.

HA1 2: The effect of classification on career behaviors will interact significantly
with the effect of point of entry into major on career behaviors for FCS female

undergraduates.

80

Educational Involvement

H013: The effect of classification on educational involvement will not interact
significantly with the effect of point of entry into major on educational

involvement for FCS female undergraduates.

HA13: The effect of classification on educational involvement will interact
significantly with the effect of point of entry into major on educational

involvement for FCS female undergraduates.

Lifestyle Behaviors

H014: The effect of classification on lifestyle behaviors will not interact
significantly with the effect of point of entry into major on lifestyle behaviors for

FCS female undergraduates.

HA“: The effect of classification on lifestyle behaviors will interact significantly
with the effect of point of entry into major on lifestyle behaviors for FCS female

undergraduates.

Cultural Participation

H015: The effect of classification on cultural participation will not interact
significantly with the effect of point of entry into major on cultural participation for

FCS female undergraduates.

Hmsz The effect of classification on cultural participation will interact significantly
with the effect of point of entry into major on cultural participation for FCS female

undergraduates.

81

Research Question #4: Certification track

What is the relationship between certification track (career choice) and
career and lifestyle development (represented by career behaviors,
educational involvement, lifestyle behaviors, and cultural participation) for
FCS female undergraduates?

Career And Lifestyle Development

H015: The career and lifestyle development for FCS female undergraduates will
not differ significantly by certification track or non-certification track among the

seven concentrations within the academic unit.

HA16: FCS female undergraduates majoring in Nutrition and Dietetics, Early
Childhood Education, Family and Consumer Sciences Education, and Child Life
(certification track) will have greater career and lifestyle development than
undergraduates majoring in Consumer Affairs, Family Studies, or Merchandising

(non-certification track).

Career Behaviors

H017: The career behaviors of FCS female undergraduates will not differ
significantly by certification track or non-certification track among the seven

concentrations within the academic unit.

HA17: The development of career behaviors of Nutrition and Dietetics, Early
Childhood Education, Family and Consumer Sciences Education, and Child Life
majors (certification track) will be greater than that of Consumer Affairs,

Merchandising, and Family Studies majors (non-certification track).

82

Educational Involvement

H013: The educational involvement of FCS female undergraduates will not differ
significantly by certification track or non-certification track among the seven

concentrations within the academic unit.

Hma: The educational involvement of Nutrition and Dietetics, Early Childhood
Education, Family and Consumer Sciences Education, and Child Life majors
(certification track) will be higher than that of Consumer Affairs, Merchandising,

and Family Studies majors (non-certification track).

Lifestyle Behaviors

H019: The lifestyle behaviors of FCS female undergraduates will not differ
significantly by certification track or non-certification track among the seven

concentrations within the academic unit.

ngz The development of lifestyle behaviors of Nutrition and Dietetics, Early
Childhood Education, Family and Consumer Sciences Education, and Child Life
majors (certification track) will be greater than that of Consumer Affairs,

Merchandising, and Family Studies majors (non-certification track).

Cultural Participation

H020: The cultural participation of FCS female undergraduates will not differ
significantly by certification track or non-certification track among the seven

concentrations within the academic unit.

83

Him: The cultural participation of Nutrition and Dietetics, Early Childhood
Education, Family and Consumer Sciences Education, and Child Life majors
(certification track) will be higher than that of Consumer Affairs, Merchandising,

and Family Studies majors (non-certification track).

Research Question #5: Family Background Characteristics

What is the effect of mother’s education level, father’s education level,
and number of family members in a similar career on career and lifestyle
development (represented by career behaviors, educational involvement,
lifestyle behaviors, and cultural participation) for FCS female
undergraduates?

Career And Lifestyle Development

H021: Mother’s education level will not have a significant effect on the career

and lifestyle development for FCS female undergraduates.

Hm: The higher the mother’s education level, the greater the career and

lifestyle development for FCS female undergraduates.

H022: Father’s education level will not have a significant effect on the career and

lifestyle development for FCS female undergraduates.

Him: The higher the father’s education level, the greater the career and lifestyle

development for FCS female undergraduates.

H023: Number of family members with a similar career will not have a significant

effect on the career and lifestyle development for FCS female undergraduates.

HA23: The higher the number of family members with a similar career, the
greater the career and lifestyle development for FCS female undergraduates.
Career Behaviors

H024: Mother’s education level will not have a significant effect on the

development of career behaviors for FCS female undergraduates.

HA24: The higher the mother’s education level, the greater the development of

career behaviors for FCS female undergraduates.

H025: Father’s education level will not have a significant effect on the

development of career behaviors for FCS female undergraduates.

HA25: The higher the father’s education level, the greater the development of

career behaviors for F CS female undergraduates.

H026: Number of family members with a similar career will not have a significant

effect on the development of career behaviors for FCS female undergraduates.

HA25: The higher the number of family members with a similar career, the

greater the development of career behaviors for FCS female undergraduates.

Educational Involvement

H027: Mother’s education level will not have a significant effect on educational

involvement for FCS female undergraduates.

HA27: The higher the mother’s education level, the higher the educational

involvement for FCS female undergraduates.

85

H023: Father’s education level will not have a significant effect on educational

involvement for FCS female undergraduates.

HA”: The higher the father’s education level, the higher the educational

involvement for FCS female undergraduates.

H029: Number of family members with a similar career will not have a significant

effect on educational involvement for FCS female undergraduates.

HAng The higher the number of family members with a similar career, the higher

the educational involvement for FCS female undergraduates.

Lifestyle Behaviors

H030: Mother’s education level will not have a significant effect on the

development of lifestyle behaviors for FCS female undergraduates.

HMO: The higher the mother’s education level, the greater the development of

lifestyle behaviors for FCS female undergraduates.

H031: Father’s education level will not have a significant effect on the

development of lifestyle behaviors for FCS female undergraduates.

Hm: The higher the father’s education level, the greater the development of

lifestyle behaviors for FCS female undergraduates.

H032: Number of family members with a similar career will not have a significant

effect on the development of lifestyle behaviors for FCS female undergraduates.

86

HA32: The higher the number of family members with a similar career, the

greater the development of lifestyle behaviors for FCS female undergraduates.

Cultural Participation

H033: Mother’s education level will not have a significant effect on cultural

participation for FCS female undergraduates.

HA33: The higher the mother’s education level, the higher the cultural

participation for FCS female undergraduates.

H034: Father’s education level will not have a significant effect on the cultural

participation for FCS female undergraduates.

HA34: The higher the father’s education level, the higher the cultural participation

for FCS female undergraduates.

H035: Number of family members with a similar career will not have a significant

effect on the cultural participation for FCS female undergraduates.

HA35: The higher the number of family members with a similar career, the higher

the cultural participation for FCS female undergraduates.

87

Research Question #6: Interaction of Family Characteristics

What is the interaction effect of mother’s education level, father’s
education level, and number of family members in a similar career on
career and lifestyle development for FCS female undergraduates?

Career And Lifestyle Development

H035: The effect of mother’s education level, father’s education level, and
number of family members in a similar career on career and lifestyle
development will not interact significantly with each other for FCS female

undergraduates.

Hm: The effect of mother’s education level, father’s education level, and
number of family members in a similar career on career and lifestyle
development will interact significantly with each other for FCS female

undergraduates.

Research Design for the Study

The study was a descriptive, cross-sectional exploration of the population of
interest. The study attempted to describe the relationships between the
independent variables of classification, point of entry into the major, and
certification track, and the dependent variables of career and lifestyle
development, career behaviors, educational involvement, lifestyle behaviors, and
cultural participation by collecting self-report data from undergraduate females
pursuing a degree in the field of Family and Consumer Sciences. It was cross-

sectional in that it collected data from the participant one time only. It was

88

exploratory because the sampling procedures limited representativeness and
because the instrument was not specifically designed to measure only female
college students’ development (Babbie, 1995). The individual college student, as
well as the groups of students choosing a particular concentration or major and
the groups of students with similar class standing based on semester hours

earned, were the units of analysis.

In order to facilitate the design, and reflective of the hypotheses previously

described, the following variables were delineated for the Study.

Variables

Career And Lifestyle Development A young adult’s career and lifestyle
development is the integration of values and behavior concerning career and
lifestyle Visioning. The composite measure of career behaviors, educational
involvement, lifestyle behaviors, and cultural participation served as the first

dependent variable.

Career Behaviors Evidence of thought and preparation for entry into the world
of work was measured for FCS female undergraduates. Career behaviors served

as the second dependent variable.

Educational Involvement Evidence of definite and concise educational goals, as
well as interaction with the academic community, was measured. Educational

involvement was the third dependent variable.

89

Lifestyle Behaviors Evidence of clarified and articulated personal values and a
holistic plan for the future was measured for sample participants. Lifestyle

behaviors is the fourth dependent variable.

Cultural Participation Evidence of involvement in a wide variety of non-
academic activities and leisure pursuits was measured and served as the fifth

dependent variable.

Classification Semester hours accrued (based on traditional labels of freshman,
sophomore, junior, and senior) was measured by classification and served as

one independent variable.

Point of Entry into Major The timing (in the scope of the college career) of
declaring a major may influence the outcomes of one or all of the dependent

variables. Point of entry into major is the second independent variable.

Certification Track Certification track was measured by concentration or
program of study within FCS professions and served as a third independent
variable. Participants recorded a “double major” by checking two programs of

study if they intend to complete curriculum coursework in two concentrations.

Mother’s Education Level The family background characteristic of level of
education attained by the participant’s mother (if known) may influence
development of sense of purpose, particularly the subset of educational
involvement behaviors. Mother’s education level is the fourth independent

variable.

90

Fathers Education Level The family background characteristic of level of
education attained by the participant’s father (if known) may influence
development of sense of purpose, particularly the subset of educational

involvement behaviors. Father’s education level is the fifth independent variable.

Number of Family Members with Similar Career A final family background
characteristic, number of family members with a similar career as the one to
which the participant aspires, was measured by self-report data and serves as
the sixth independent variable. Family members with a career in the same
discipline or field as the participant may contribute to a greater understanding of

necessary career preparation behaviors.

Gender Gender may have implications for developmental progress and needed
to be controlled for in the study. It is noted here that excluding males from the
data analysis controlled for this variable, as they comprised a very small

percentage of the convenience sample (four males in an original sample of 145).

Race/Ethnicity It is noted here that the normative data for the instrument
indicates no significant racial differences for the constructs being measured in

this study, therefore racial background was not controlled for in the study.

Age The Vector Theory of College Student Development assumes typical
developmental progress for college students aged 17 to 25. Participants who fell
outside of this age range were excluded from analysis (seven out of the original

145 sample size).

91

Summary of the Variables

Classification, point of entry into major, certification track, and family background
characteristics of parental education level and number of family members with a
similar career were the independent variables examined for their relationship to
career and lifestyle development as represented by career behaviors,
educational involvement, lifestyle behaviors, and cultural participation (see
Figure 3). Students’ classification varied by semester hours accrued, from
freshman to senior. Participants were asked to indicate their standing by
choosing freshman (zero to thirty semester hours earned), sophomore (thirty-one
to sixty hours earned), junior (sixty-one to ninety hours earned), or senior (ninety-
one hours or more earned). Point of entry into the major was measured as an
additional time element in the development process. In order to collect more
accurate self-report data, the present study requested that participants indicate
at what point in the college career the choice of the current FCS major occurred.
Certification track was measured by concentration declared by the participant,
choosing from one of the seven concentrations available (Child Life, Consumer
Affairs, Early Childhood Education, Family and Consumer Sciences Education,
Family Studies, Merchandising, or Nutrition and Dietetics). Self-report items on
the demographic questionnaire measured family background factors, as well.
Mother’s education level and father’s education level were measured by asking
participants to select one of eight check boxes of education level ranging from
“grade school/junior high” to “doctor’s degree” as the highest level attainable.

Number of family members with a similar career was also measured by a

92

demographic question where participants chose from “no family members with a
similar career,” “one family member,” “two family members," or “three or more

family members.”

93

Figure 3: Variables in the Study

Indegndent Degndent

 

 

 

Classification ‘ > Career And Lifestyle

Career Behaviors
Educational Involvement
Lifestyle Behaviors
Cultural Participation

 

 

Career And Lifestyle
Development

Certification track

\r

Career Behaviors
Educational Involvement
Lifestyle Behaviors
Cultural Participation

 

 

Point of Entry Career And Lifestyle

Into Major I Development
Career Behaviors
Educational Involvement

Lifestyle Behaviors
Cultural Participation

 

 

 

W

Career And Lifestyle
Development

Mother’s Education Level

 

 

 

V

Career and lifestyle
development

Father’s Education Level

 

 

Number of Family > Career and lifestyle
Members development

With Similar Career

94

Instrumentation

Selection Process

In the search for an instrument that would effectively measure the career and
lifestyle development to be studied, the theoretical areas of career development
and values clarification were surveyed for measurement tools. An examination of
the literature yielded instruments to be used for counseling and assessment or
for empirical data collection. Instruments were evaluated as to their reasonable
use with and for college students. A brief description of the instruments
considered will show the reasoned approach to instrument selection. Then the
researcher will defend the logic of the instrument choice for this study, and finally

offer details of the instrument itself.

The well-documented research in career development offers assessment tools
from respected theorists and sources (lsaacson & Brown, 1993). Table 1 shows
a comparison of five instruments that were evaluated by this researcher as to
their fit with the theoretical perspectives that guide the study. This screening of
instruments is a considerable reduction of the many available; others not
included in the table were filtered out due to their lack of fit with guiding

theoretical perspectives.

The position of values in the career development process as influencing
employment choices as well as lifestyle choices is acknowledged by numerous
theorists (Bond, 1988; Brown, 1996; Brown & Grace, 1996; Brown & Grace,

1997; Grube, Mayton, 8 Ball-Rokeach, 1994; lsaacson & Brown, 1993;

95

Pascarella, Ethington, & Smart, 1988; Weber, 1993). Several of the career
assessment tools have a values or lifestyle piece included. However, the
particular interests of this researcher prompted a survey of measurements
whose sole or primary focus is the exploration and clarification of values. Table 2
shows a comparison of three values assessment tools selected for review based

on their connection to or separation from the guiding theoretical perspectives.

96

Table 1

Evaluation of Career Development Instruments

 

Instrument Author or Evaluative Comments
Developer
Career Super, Eight scale scores measure readiness
Development Thompson, to make career decisions. Intended for
Inventory (CDI) Lindeman, use with 8th graders through college
Jordaan, & age.
Myers, 1981
Self Directed Holland, 1985 Measures Holland’s personality types,
Search provides a personality code to be
matched to a well-fitting occupation in
the Occupations Finder.
My Vocational Holland, Daiger, Three scales attempt to identify lack of
Situation (MVS) & Power, 1980 vocational identity and occupational

Career Decision
Scale (008)

Strong-Campbell
Interest Inventory
(SCII)

Osipow, 1987

Strong &
Campbell, 1985

97

information, and barriers
(environmental or personal) to
occupational choice.

Focuses on failure or success in
making career decisions; two scales
address Certainty and Indecision

Used in wide variety of age groups for
initial career decision-making as well
as career changes. Organized around
Holland’s Types.

Table 2

Evaluation of Values Instruments

Instrument

Author or
Developer

Evaluative Comments

 

Rokeach Value
Survey

Life Values
Inventory

L.O.V. Value
Survey

Rokeach, 1982

Brown & Crace,
1996

Durgee,
O’Connor, &
Veryzer, 1996

Tactile, often used. Research
precedent of connecting values
rankings to college major.

For use as a career-counseling
assessment tool; includes an
occupations locator for “matching”
values to career choice.

The List of Values (LOV) is a
condensation of Rokeach’s 18
Instrumental Values. In market
research, instrumental values are more
directly related to product choice. The
LOV is not congruent with an

ecological perspective.

98

The researcher’s interests in career development and values clarification as
related to lifestyle development led to the consideration of numerous instruments
measuring one or the other set of constructs. However, the desire to find a
holistic approach to measuring career and lifestyle development within the
context of college student development was the driving force behind the
selection of the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment
(Winston, et al., 1999b) as the single tool for data collection. The SDTLA
measures college student developmental progress for constructs based on the
Vector Theory of College Student Development (Chickering 8 Reisser, 1993),
including Establishing and Clarifying Purpose, Developing Autonomy, and
Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships Tasks. The Establishing and
Clarifying Purpose task most closely addresses the career and lifestyle behaviors

of interest.

The SDTLA’s Establishing and Clarifying Purpose Task includes four subtasks
measuring career and lifestyle development. Career behaviors are measured by
the Career Planning subtask, containing fourteen items that address various
aspects of career preparation within the college setting. Career behaviors are
supported with activities measured by the Educational Involvement subtask,
containing fourteen items that address academic preparation and connectedness
to academic entities on campus. Lifestyle behaviors are measured by the
Lifestyle Planning subtask, containing thirteen items to assess level of thinking
about the role of marriage, religious beliefs, and materialism in the future.

Lifestyle behaviors are supported with activities measured by the Cultural

99

Participation subtask, containing ten items aimed at the respondent’s views
toward the arts as well as openness toward other cultural influences. Multiple-
choice or true/false question types in each subtask provide parameters for
responses, which have weighted scores for analysis purposes. While the raw
data for each subtask can be converted to T-scores for use in career counseling,
the SDTLA provides instructions for an aggregate score for the Establishing and
Clarifying Purpose Task as well. This researcher believes that greater

understanding can be derived from the use of both subtask data and task data.

Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment

Participants completed Form 1.99 of the Student Developmental Tasks and
Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA). The SDTLA (Winston, et al., 1999a) addresses
the developmental tasks outlined in Chickering’s Vector Theory. Data were
collected in an effort to provide information on the multiple environmental
interactions that have occurred and are occurring for individual students. Form
1.99 contains 153 items in True/False or Multiple Choice format. Responses are

“bubbled” onto a computerized answer sheet, provided with the instrument.

Due to the several revisions of the instrument since its first publication in 1974 as
the Student Developmental Task Inventory by Prince, Miller, & Winston
(Winston, et al., 1999b), reliability issues have been sufficiently addressed. For
the current instrument (1999 version), test-retest reliability correlations for all
tasks, subtasks, and scales (n = 52) clustered around 0.80, with significance at

the p < 0.01 level (Pearson product-moment correlations). Cronbach alpha

100

coefficients for the internal consistency of the items (n = 1822) ranged from 0.88

(Developing Autonomy task) to 0.62 (Instrumental Autonomy subtask).

Validity of the SDTLA was approached by the authors by first assuming that,
given the nature of developmental theory, subtasks would be highly correlated
with the other subtasks associated with a single task, and all tasks would be
reasonably correlated to each other. This assumption is based on the fact that
developmental tasks are not accomplished in isolation of each other, but
somewhat concurrently (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). lntercorrelation tests
corroborated the assumption. Additionally, the authors estimated the validity of
constructs by correlating tasks with other scales purported to measure similar
constructs. The Establishing and Clarifying Purpose Task correlated moderately
with the Career Exploration Scale by Super (0.53), and the Life Skills
Development Inventory by Pickleshimer (0.45), with the Career Behaviors
subtask correlating the most highly with Super’s Career Exploration Scale (0.60).

Estimates of validity for other tasks and subtasks ranged from 0.21 to 0.67.

In addition to the seven vectors, the SDTLA assess the accuracy of participant
disclosure in the Response Bias and Salubrious Lifestyle Scales. The Response
Bias scale gauges to what degree the responses on other items are intended to
provide data desirable to the researcher rather than a true picture of the
participant. The response bias scale correlated highly with the Marlowe-Crowne
Social Desirability scale (r = 0.83, n = 46, p < 0.01). The Salubrious Lifestyle
scale attempts to measure to what degree the participant values health, fitness,

and holistic well-being. The Salubrious Lifestyle correlated with a Wellness Scale

101

generated for the purposes of validity estimates by Baker and Cooper: r = 0.54

(n = 119, p < 0.001).

A normative data set provides additional information for interpretation and
empirical use of the SDTLA. “Data were collected from over 1800 students from
31 colleges and universities in the United States and Canada between the
months of October and May, 1995 -1997.” (Winston, et al, 1999b, p. 13). Data
have been analyzed for patterns by classification, gender, and ethnicity.
Additionally, keyed responses are provided in order to extend the uses of the
instrument for counseling purposes. Based on participant responses, strategies

can be suggested as follow-up to facilitate further developmental progress.
Demographic Questionnaire

Additional data were collected via a demographic questionnaire constructed by
the researcher (see Appendix A). The first version of the demographic
questionnaire was used in the pilot study. Revisions resulted from the need to
expand information on participants’ family background. A panel of two faculty
members and one nontraditional student in the Family and Consumer Sciences
unit from which the sample was drawn provided feedback on the revisions and

the final version of the demographic questionnaire.

The questionnaire included items on the participants’ concentration (labeled
“major" due to the common vernacular of students) as well as point of entry into
the major - from fall quarter freshman to spring quarter senior. Participants were

asked to write in any majors pursued prior to the current one. Family background

102

data were requested from the participants as well; parents’ marital status, career
and education level of mother and father, number of family members with a
career similar to the participant’s major, and annual family income level. The final
page of the demographic questionnaire provided check boxes for items A. — G.
of the SDTLA because these items could not be bubbled on the computerized

sheet.

Sample

The convenience sample was composed of female undergraduates majoring in
Family and Consumer Science related degree programs in the School of Human
Ecology at Louisiana Tech University. Louisiana Tech has annual fall enrollment
of approximately 10,000 and is located in a primarily rural area of north central
Louisiana. Louisiana residents comprise 83% of the student population, with
76% of in-state students coming from the northern half of the state. Females
comprise 52% of the population. Currently, LA Tech enrolls about 360
international students from 63 countries, ranging from Australia to Zambia.
Chinese and Indian students are well represented at the university (Erickson,

2001).

The School of Human Ecology is in the College of Applied and Natural Sciences.
In the Spring quarter of 2002, approximately 266 undergraduates were enrolled,
over half being upper level students (juniors and seniors). Over 90% of the
students are female. The majority of students in the School fit the age band

considered “traditional” for college-aged youth, ages 17 to 25. Students pursue

103

 

one of three degree programs with seven concentrations within the unit. The
Family, Infancy, and Early Childhood Education degree includes the following
concentrations, with percentages of total enrollees for Spring 2002: Child Life
(32.3%%), Early Childhood Education (12%), Family and Consumer Sciences
Education (1.9%), and Family Studies (13.2%). The Merchandising and
Consumer Affairs degree includes two concentrations, one in Merchandising
(11.3%) and one in Consumer Affairs (8.6%). The Nutrition and Dietetics degree
has a Nutrition and Dietetics concentration (20.7%) and a Dietetic Intern program
(post-baccalaureate). As a unit, the School of Human Ecology is accredited by
the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences (AAFCS). All
degree programs that can be accredited are accredited by appropriate
organizations such as the National Association for the Education of Young

Children (NAEYC) and the American Dietetics Association (ADA).

Pilot study data collected during the February and March of the 2000 — 2001
academic year included students enrolled in one of two classes within the School
of Human Ecology. Students in Merchandising and Consumer Studies 256 and
Human Ecology 398 completed Form 1.99 of the Student Developmental Task
and Lifestyle Assessment within a class period. The sample (n = 61) consisted of
female freshmen (19.7%), sophomores (21.3%), juniors (13.1%) and seniors
(44.3%) majoring in Family, Infancy, and Early Childhood Education (57.4%),
Merchandising and Consumer Affairs (27.9%) and Nutrition and Dietetics
(14.7%). The median age of the sample was 21 years, although ages ranged

from 18 years to 40 years old. Overall, the participants were somewhat new to

104

 

their programs of study: the majority (59%) had been in their concentration for
five quarters or less, while almost one-third (32.8%) had been in their
concentration for two quarters or less. This finding led to the present study’s
research questions on the effect of “point of entry into major" on the dependent

variables.

For the present study, the researcher collected data from students enrolled in
one of several Human Ecology courses during the Winter and Spring Quarters of
2001 — 2002: Merchandising and Consumer Studies 256 (MCS 256: Individual
and Family Management), Human Ecology 398 (HEC 398: Seminar in Human
Ecology, “capstone” course for juniors and seniors), Family and Child Studies
201 (FCS 201: Individual and Family Development), Merchandising and
Consumer Studies 108 (M08 108: Orientation to Merchandising and Consumer
Affairs Careers), or Food and Nutrition 274 (F&N 274: Orientation to Dietetics
Careers). Merchandising and Consumer Studies 256, Human Ecology 398, and
Family and Child Studies 201 are required for graduation in a Human Ecology
degree. Merchandising and Consumer Studies 256 includes content related to
management of individual and family resources for decision-making purposes.
Human Ecology 398 emphasizes the professional commonalities among the
three HE majors and seven concentrations, as well as issues associated with
defining oneself professionally. Merchandising and Consumer Studies 108 offers
a broad survey of career opportunities in the public and private sector for
retailing, customer service, public relations, or policy, and is required for

graduation in the Merchandising and Consumer Affairs degree program. Food

105

 

and Nutrition 274 offers an orientation to the dietetics profession, including
information on the dietetics internship and registered dietitian certification exam.
It is required for all Nutrition and Dietetics majors. The researcher secured verbal
permission from the instructors of these courses to administer the instrument
during a class meeting. A recruiting flyer was generated but was not used due to

adequate sample size from the classes.

Procedures

Participants completed Form 1.99 of the Student Developmental Task and
Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA) in pen-and-paper format. The SDTLA was used
with permission from the publisher via a site-license agreement (see Appendix
B). Additionally, the University Committee for Research involving Human
Subjects at Michigan State University (UCRIHS) and the Human Subjects
Committee at Louisiana Tech University approved the use of the SDTLA and the
Demographic Questionnaire in the present study (see Appendix C). Participants
in the HE courses completed the instrument during a 35-minute portion of a
class meeting, with the researcher administering the test. This procedural format
was followed during the pilot study as well. The researcher, with the instructors’
permission, attended a class period, explained the instrument and the informed
consent procedure, distributed the instrument and a computerized score sheet,
and collected the instrument before the end of the class. Participants could ask
the research administrator any clarifying questions necessary to facilitate

completion of the survey. One participant could not complete the instrument

106

during the time allotted, leaving fifty-three questions unanswered; that record

was deleted from the sample.

The Human Subjects Committee at Louisiana Tech University approved the
research plan prior to the pilot study, which covered the present study as well.
The Michigan State University Committee for Research in Human Subjects
approved both the pilot study and the present study (see Appendix for Human

Subjects documentation).

Summary of Research Design as Informed by Pilot Study

The pilot study conducted in February and March of 2001 (Winter and Spring
quarters) provided a reasonable exercise to simulate the proposed study. The
researcher gained several insights into sound research design by conducting the
study. Although not originally hypothesized, the amount of time spent pursuing
the current major was included as a variable on the cover sheet for the
instrument. An interesting pattern was revealed in the pilot study sample: most of
the participants (57.4%) were juniors and seniors, but the majority (59%) had
been in their concentration for five quarters or less, while almost one-third
(32.8%) had been in their concentration for two quarters or less. This pattern
reinforced the importance of collecting “point of entry into major” data and
exploring the developmental implications for students who transfer into a Family

and Consumer Sciences major.

The pilot study provided analysis insights for the present study as well. The

authors of the SDTLA recommend converting average scores on subtasks to T-

107

scores, which provide a comparison to the normative mean score for a subgroup
(i.e., freshman female) and facilitate the use of the SDTLA as a counseling tool.
Pilot study data for SDTLA subtasks were not converted to T-scores. Because
the goal of the present study was descriptive rather than evaluative, the subtask

and task average scores were used as data for testing hypotheses.

The pilot study sample was not large enough to provide sufficient cell size in
each of the classification levels for analysis purposes. Therefore, freshmen and
sophomores were grouped into “Lower Division” and juniors and seniors were
grouped into “Upper Division”. The mean SDTLA scores for the dependent
variables of career behaviors, educational involvement, lifestyle behaviors, and
cultural participation were analyzed using t-tests, as shown in Table 3. The data

analysis revealed no significant differences between the two groups.

The pilot study participants were grouped by degree program to compare scores
on dependent variables by major. Table 4 displays the mean scores for the
dependent variables of career behaviors, educational involvement, lifestyle
behaviors, and cultural participation, the differences among which were analyzed

using ANOVA. No significant differences were observed.

108

Table 3

Comparison of Pilot Study Means on Career and Lifestyle Development by

 

DNBMn
Classification subgroups

Lower Upper
Dependent variables division division
Career behaviors 2.92 3.13
Educational involvement 3.29 3.60
Lifestyle behaviors 3.55 3.62
Cultural participation 3.28 3.18
Note: Lower division = freshmen and sophomores; upper division = juniors and
seniors
*p < .05

109

Table 4
Comparison of Pilot Study Means on Career and Lifestyle Development by Major

Independent variable - major

 

 

Dependent variables F IECE M&CA N&D
Career behaviors 3-13 2-37 3.03
Lifestyle behaviors 3'56 3-57 374
Cultural participation 3'06 3-44 3.41

3.51 3.42 3,40

Educational involvement

Note: FIECE = Family, Infancy, & Early Childhood Education; M&CA =
Merchandising & Consumer Affairs; N&D = Nutrition & Dietetics

*p < .05

110

Procedural insights also were gained from the pilot study exercise. One student
requested to be allowed to complete the SDTLA at home after running out of
time during the class period. The participant brought the instrument and score
sheet back the next day but was no closer to completing it than before. The
authors of the SDTLA do not recommend allowing students to complete the
instrument without the researcher present, and this was reinforced by the

participant’s situation.

Summary of Methodology

In order to examine the research questions of interest, several relationships were
hypothesized. The literature background and normal data set for the instrument
indicate a positive relationship between semester hours accrued and increase in
career and lifestyle development for college students. Additionally, the
researcher hoped to determine any relationships between career and lifestyle
development and factors such as timing of declaring a FCS major, whether the
major has certification procedures associated with it, and family background
characteristics such as parental education level and number of family members

with a similar career.

Sample participants were surveyed in several FCS content courses within the
unit during the Winter and Spring Quarters of the 2001-2002 school year. The
researcher administered the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle

Assessment and a demographic questionnaire as measures of the constructs of

111

 

interest. The next chapter discusses the analysis procedures and the results of

data analysis.

112

Chapter 4. RESULTS

In this chapter the analysis procedures and results of analysis are described.
The raw data were compiled and computed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS
software packages. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the demographic
variables of interest. Statistical tests for significance of relationships between the
dependent and independent variables were performed using SPSS software.
Data analysis in SPSS consisted of descriptive statistics on all variables of the
study, including demographics, independent and dependent variables.
Descriptives included frequencies or means for classification, certification track,
point of entry into major, family background characteristics, and demographics
such as age and ethnicity. The analysis plan in Appendix D provides additional
detail for the analysis plan. Hypotheses were tested based on the analysis plan,

and the results are displayed in tables in this section.

Compilation and Reduction of Raw Data

Responses to the SDTLA were recorded on a standard computer score sheet
(bubbled), which was then scanned and compiled into a text data file. Responses
to the demographic questionnaire were hand-entered (coded to nominal or
ordinal data) into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Each participant’s survey had a
random-number research code already written in (or bubbled) to facilitate data
entry. The researcher matched the research codes for the scanned SDTLA
responses to the research codes for the demographic data and discovered one

extra SDTLA survey without matching demographic data; that survey was

113

deleted from the data set. Once all of the data were compiled into one SPSS

database, further data reduction occurred.

As described in the methodology chapter, one participant did not complete the
survey entirely, leaving 53 questions unanswered on the SDTLA. That record
was deleted from the data set. Three study participants were not pursuing a
Family and Consumer Sciences major but completed the survey because they
were in the class during data collection; their records were deleted from the data
set. Four males completed the survey but were excluded from analysis due to
their small percentage and due to the particular interest in females’ career
development progress. Six participants were older than the “typical” age range
(17 to 25) for which the SDTLA is designed - these nontraditional-aged students
ranged from 28 to 44 years in age and were excluded from analysis. The final

number of sample participants included in data analysis is 131.

All of the 153 items in Form 1.99 of the Student Developmental Task and
Lifestyle Assessment have a weighted point value for each possible response,
whether true/false or multiple-choice. Each item was “recoded” in SPSS to reflect
the weighted value. The constructs of career behaviors (labeled career planning
in the SDTLA), educational involvement, lifestyle behaviors (labeled lifestyle
planning in the SDTLA), and cultural participation are subtasks represented by
multiple items on the survey (see analysis plan, Appendix D). The participant’s
responses were summed for the subtask and divided by the number of valid
responses for that subtask (an average score). Subtask responses were also

aggregated into one score for the Establishing and Clarifying Purpose Task,

114

which is the operational name for career and lifestyle development, by averaging
all the items for the four subtasks of career planning, educational involvement,
lifestyle planning, and cultural participation. Additionally, data for the self-
reported concentrations (seven available) were re-categorized into two groups -
those concentrations with associated certification or licensure procedures and

those without certification or licensure procedures.

Explanation of Analysis Plan

The statistical analysis plan for each variable was determined from the
hypotheses and the type of data collected (see Appendix D). Data on the
classification level of the participant was analyzed for relationships to the
dependent variables, addressing the question “what is the relationship between
classification and career and lifestyle development?” An item on the SDTLA from
which participants chose freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, or other
measured classification. The construct measured by this item is “semester hours
accrued” which is continuous in nature. However, participants indicated hours
accrued by choosing from an ordinal list of class standing. Therefore,
relationships were tested using Spearrnan rank-order correlation coefficients, a
suitable test for correlations with one or more ordinal variables. Participants who
chose “other” were omitted from analysis because that category does not reflect

an extension of a continuum, as do the other categories.

In order to answer the question, “what is the relationship between point of entry

into major and career and lifestyle development?” the data for point of entry was

115

tested for correlation with the dependent variables. As with the classification
data, the point of entry data required Speannan rank-order coefficients. Point of
entry represented the position on a time continuum when the participant
declared their current concentration or major, so as interval data the Spearman

correlation was appropriate.

The interaction effect of classification and point of entry into major was
investigated for the dependent variables. Because both the classification data
and the point of entry data represented continuous constructs, the interaction
effect between these two independent variables was examined using a multiple

linear regression model.

The predicted relationship of major to career and lifestyle development was
specific to certain majors whose successful career preparation demands
certification. Therefore the seven concentrations were re-grouped into two
categories — certification track or non-certification track. Then the relationship of

this categorical data to the dependent variables was compared using T-tests.

Two final research questions investigated the relationship of individual family
characteristics to career and lifestyle development, and the combined interaction
effect of those characteristics. Mother’s education level and father’s education
level were ranked as levels on a continuum of education and were correlated to
the dependent variables using Pearson’s product-moment coefficients. Number
of family members with a similar career, collected as ordinal data, was correlated

to the dependent variables using Spearrnan rank-ordered coefficients. All three

116

family characteristic independent variables were combined in a multiple
regression model with the dependent variable of career and lifestyle

development to determine interaction effects.

The researcher used SPSS for the statistical analysis procedures described in
the preceding paragraphs. The Analysis Plan (Appendix D) summarizes these

procedures. The results of the analysis follow in the next section

Results of Data Analysis

The results section will first provide a demographic description of the sample with
frequencies and means. A systematic discussion of hypothesis testing follows,

with appropriate statistical corroboration.

Description of the Sample

Size

The original number of surveys completed was 145. However, due to elimination
of some data records based on responses to key items, the number of surveys
used for analysis of the variables was 131, except where noted in the data
tables. (One participant did not provide parental education levels, so the number
of surveys for the analysis of mother’s education level and father’s education
level is 130. Some of the data for father’s career was missing so the number of
surveys is 127 for that data. Finally, the point of entry data for seven of the
participants fell outside the typical range of freshman to senior year, so the

number of surveys reported is 124. Each table notes the sample size used for

117

analysis.) Also, it is reiterated here that the sample was exclusively female after

eliminating the four males from the study.

Age and Race

The mean age of the group was 20.50, with ages ranging from 17 to 26. Six
students were eliminated due to ages considerably older than the population of
interest (ages 28 to 44). The participants were predominantly Caucasian-
American (90%), the remainder being African-American (9.2%) or Hispanic

(0.8%).

Classification

The sample was drawn from currently enrolled students in lower-level courses
(100 and 200 level; one 300 level course was used). However, the majority
(61.6%) of the sample was classified as juniors (20.8%), seniors (36.2%), or
“other" (4.6%). Freshmen comprised the smallest classification level with 13.1%,

and sophomores comprised 25.4% of the sample.

Point of Entry Into Major

Participants marked on a continuum diagram the point in the college career
when the entered the current concentration. The points ranged from first quarter
of the freshman year to final quarter of the senior year. Table 5 displays the
distribution of point of entry data across the continuum. The participants who

entered the concentration at some point in the freshman year (38.9%) or at some

118

point in the sophomore year (35.1%) outnumbered those who chose the

concentration in the junior year (19.1%) or senior year or later (6.9%).

119

Table 5

Point of Entry into Major

 

Quarter the major was declared Frequency Percent
n = 131 n = 131
Summer or Fall quarter freshman year 28 21.4
Winter quarter freshman year 13 9.9
Spring quarter freshman year 10 7.6
Summer or Fall quarter sophomore year 18 13.7
Winter quarter sophomore year 13 9.9
Spring quarter sophomore year 15 11.5
Summer or Fall quarter junior year 13 9.9
Winter quarter junior year 6 4.6
Spring quarterjunior year 6 4.6
Summer or Fall quarter senior year 4 3.1
Winter quarter senior year 3 2.3
Spring quarter senior year 1 .8
Other (written in as post-baccalaureate) 1 .8

120

Certification Track

Participants were limited to students pursuing a Human Ecology major at a
southern public university, Human Ecology being the name of the academic unit
offering preparation for Family and Consumer Sciences professions. The
distribution of Human Ecology concentrations was as follows: Child Life, 24.4%;
Consumer Affairs, 6.1%; Early Childhood Education, 8.4%; Family Studies,
14.5%; Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 3.1%; Consumer Affairs,
22.9%; and Nutrition and Dietetics, 20.6%. Participants were asked to indicate
their concentration only, not their degree program, because the concentration is
the label most closely associated with a career. However, the researcher
compiled the concentrations into the degree purposes to see if the sample was
representative of the population at this university. The Family, Infancy, and Early
Childhood Education degree program includes the concentrations of Child Life,
Early Childhood Education, Family Studies, and Family and Consumer Sciences
Education and comprised 50.4% of the sample. The Merchandising and
Consumer Affairs degree program includes the concentrations of Consumer
Affairs and Merchandising and comprised 29.0% of the sample. The Nutrition
and Dietetics major and concentration comprised the remaining 20.6% of the
sample. These figures are fairly representative of the unit’s enrollment in the
three degree programs, although the percentage of Merchandising and
Consumer Affairs majors in the sample is slightly higher than the percentage of

all those enrolled.

121

Parent’s Education

Sample participants also provided information about certain family background
characteristics. The parents of the student respondents were well educated
overall, as shown in Table 6. Over 45% of fathers of study participants have
earned a bachelor’s degree or higher, and 20% of the fathers have master’s or
doctorate degrees. Mothers of study participants are well educated, too; 48.5%
have earned at least a bachelor’s degree, and 15.4% of the mothers have

masters or doctorate degrees.

122

Table 6

Parental Education Levels

Mother (n=130)

Father (n=130)

 

Education Level Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Grade school/junior high -- -- 1 0.8
Some high school 2 1.5 5 3.8
High school diploma 34 26.2 31 23.8
Some college 31 23.8 32 24.6
Bachelor’s degree 43 33.1 35 26.9
Some graduate school -- -- -—- --
Master’s degree 19 14.6 16 12.3
Doctor’s degree 1 0.8 8 7.7

Note: one case provided no data for parent's education level.

123

Parent’s Careers

Other family background information focused on career paths of parents or other
family members. Participants indicated their mother’s career and father’s career
from a list of options (see Table 7). If a participant wrote in a career not listed,
the researcher categorized it if possible (for example, “nurse” was categorized

into “professional”) or coded it as "other", not originally a choice on the survey.

124

Table 7

Parent’s Careers

Mother (n=130)

Father (n=127)

 

Career Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Executive/managerial 1 1 8.5 22 17.3
Professional (medical 15 1 1 .5 12 9.4
field, law)

Academic/educator 34 26.2 6 4.7
Computer technical or -- -- 8 6.3
engrneenng

Service or customer 6 4.6 7 5.5
suppon

Clerical/administrative 1 5 1 1 .5 3 2.3
Sales/marketing 5 3.8 6 4.7
Tradesman/craftsman -- -- 1 5 1 1 .8
College or graduate 3 2.3 -- --
student

Homemaker 16 12.2 -- --
Self-employed 10 7.7 27 21 .3
Unemployed 2 1 .5 4 3.1
Retired 2 1 .5 5 3.8
Other 11 8.4 12 9.2

125

Other Family Member's Careers

In addition to parent’s careers, participants provided information on number of
family members who had a career similar to the one they were pursuing. The
majority of students (66.4%) had no family members with a similar career, while
the remainder reported family career similarities with one family member

(19.8%), two family members (6.9%), or three or more family members (6.9%).

Family Income

Participants indicated an income range into which their family fell. Although a
portion of the sample indicated they did not know the annual income level of their
family, those who knew indicated income levels predominantly in the middle and

upper-middle class (see Table 8).

126

Table 8

Family Income

 

Income level Frequency Percent
n = 131 = 131
Don’t know 28 21.4
Below $20,000 4 3.1
$20,000 - $40,000 13 9.9
$40,000 - $60,000 17 13.0
$60,000 - $80,000 31 23.7
$80,000 - $100,000 25 19.1
Over $100,000 13 9.9

127

Investigation of Variables

Classification

The relationship between classification and career and lifestyle development was
examined using Speamran rank-order correlation (see Table 9). For consistency,
the variables are reported, and it is acknowledged that the data analyzed
consisted of scores on various tasks and subtasks of the SDTLA that were
chosen to measure the variables. Establishing and clarifying purpose was the
task on the Student Developmental Tasks and Lifestyle Assessment composed
of survey items addressing career planning, lifestyle planning, educational
involvement, and cultural participation. The correlation coefficient for
classification and career and lifestyle development was 0.188 (p < .05).
Classification was also correlated to each of the related dependent variables
using Spearrnan rank-order coefficients. A significant relationship was observed
for the career behaviors variable, with a coefficient of 0.177 (p < .05), and for the
educational involvement variable, with a coefficient of 0.255 (p < .01). The other
two subtasks, lifestyle behaviors and cultural participation, did not significantly

correlate to classification.

Point of Entry into Major

Point of entry into major was correlated to career and lifestyle development as

well as the related dependent variables using Speannan’s rank-order coefficient.

128

None of the correlation coefficients were significant. The Spearrnan coefficients
for classification and point of entry into major are displayed in Table 9.
Table 9

Correlation of Classification and Point of Entry with Career and Lifestyle

 

 

Behaviors
Independent variables
Spearrnan’s rho

Dependent variables Classification Point of entry into

major
Career and lifestyle development‘ .188“ -.004
Career behaviors” .177* -.007
Educational involvement .255” -.010
Lifestyle behaviorsc .073 -.021
Cultural participation .057 -.022
Note: n = 124

aMeasured by the Establishing and Clarifying Purpose Task of the SDTLA;
bmeasured by the Career Planning subtask of the SDTLA; cmeasured by the
Lifestyle Planning subtask of the SDTLA.

*p < .05 (2—tailed); *“p < .01 (2-tailed).

129

Interaction of Classification and Point of Entry

The interaction effect of classification and point of entry into major on the
dependent variables was examined using multiple regression analysis because
both of the constructs were continuous and the data provided a simplified
measure of points on a continuum. The model of classification and point of entry
combined to explain approximately 6.1% of the variance in the dependent
variable, career and lifestyle development (R2 = 0.061). However, there was no
interaction effect for classification and point of entry on career and lifestyle
development, because there was no relationship between point of entry into
major and career and lifestyle development. The same is true for each of the

other dependent variables of career behaviors, educational involvement, lifestyle
behaviors, and cultural participation, whose standardized beta ([3) coefficients

are shown in Table 10.

130

Table 10

Regression of Classification and Point of Entry into Major on Career and Lifestyle

 

 

Development

Classification P1111: $313?

8 t B t
Career and lifestyle development“ .283 2.780“ -.168 -1.648
Career behaviors” .282 2.781 * -.199 -1.958
Educational involvement .354 3.544” -.176 -1.759
Lifestyle behaviorsc .133 1.274 -.099 -.953
Cultural participation .063 .606 -.039 -.372
Note: n = 124

3Measured by the Establishing and Clarifying Purpose Task of the SDTLA;
bmeasured by the Career Planning subtask of the SDTLA; °measured by the
Lifestyle Planning subtask of the SDTLA.

*p < .01; **p <= .001

131

Certification or Licensure Track

The participants indicated their future career aspirations by choosing one of the
seven concentrations in the School of Human Ecology in which they were
enrolled. Although not exclusive to one degree, several of these concentrations
have a built-in licensure or certification step in the career-attainment process. For
the purposes of analysis, the seven concentrations were recoded into two tracks.
Certification-track concentrations included Child Life, Early Childhood Education,
Family and Consumer Sciences Education, and Nutrition and Dietetics. Non-
certification tracks include Family Studies, Merchandising, and Consumer Affairs.
The data were grouped according to these tracks and mean SDTLA scores on
the dependent variables of career and lifestyle development, career behaviors,
educational involvement, lifestyle behaviors, and cultural participation were
compared using t-tests. Table 11 displays the results of the comparison. None of

the mean differences between the groups were significant at the p < .05 level.

132

Table 11

Comparison of Means on Career and Lifestyle Development by Certification

Track

Certification track

Non-certification track

 

 

n = 74 n = 57

Dependent variable scores Mean SD. Mean SD.
Career and lifestyle 3.237 .4997 3.152 .6646
development“I

Career behaviors” 3.108 .8494 2.928 .7527
Educational involvement 3.466 .6563 3.341 .8076
Lifestyle behaviors° 3.481 .6279 3.340 .7621
Cultural participation 2.635 .8093 2.823 .9502

:Measured by the Establishing and Clarifying Purpose Task of the SDTLA;
bmeasured by the Career Planning subtask of the SDTLA; °measured by the
Lifestyle Planning subtask of the SDTLA.

*p < .05 (2—tailed)

133

Family Characteristics

The family characteristics of mother’s education level, father’s education level,
and number of family members with a similar career were examined for any
relationships to the dependent variables of career and lifestyle development,
career behaviors, lifestyle behaviors, cultural participation, and educational
involvement. Mother’s education and father’s education were analyzed using the
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient as shown in Table 12. Neither
parent’s education level showed a significant correlation to any of the dependent
variables, although mother’s education level and father’s education level were

positively correlated with a coefficient of .419 (p < .001).

134

Table 12

Correlation of Parental Education Level and Career and Lifestyle Development

 

 

Mother’s Father’s

education education
Dependent variables r r
Career and lifestyle -.077 .042
developmenta
Career behaviors” -.073 .031
Educational involvement -.088 .036
Lifestyle behaviorsc -.075 .008
Cultural participation .013 .063
Note: n = 130

2.Measured by the Establishing and Clarifying Purpose Task of the SDTLA;
bmeasured by the Career Planning subtask of the SDTLA; °measured by the
Lifestyle Planning subtask of the SDTLA.

*p < .05

135

The family characteristic of number of family members with a similar career was
examined using Spearrnan’s rank-order correlation coefficient for the relationship
to dependent variables. A significant relationship was observed between number
of family members with a similar career and three of the dependent variables, as
shown in Table 13. The number of family members with a similar career was
positively correlated to career and lifestyle development (.201 ), career behaviors
(.185), and educational involvement (.172). No significant relationships existed

for lifestyle behaviors and cultural participation.

136

Table 13

Correlation of Family Members with Similar Career to Career and Lifestyle

 

 

Development

Family members

with similar careers
n = 130

Degendent variables Siean’nan’s rho
Career and lifestyle development” .201“
Career behaviorsb .185“
Educational involvement .172*
Lifestyle behaviorsc .147
Cultural participation .122

8‘Measured by the Establishing and Clarifying Purpose Task of the SDTLA;
bmeasured by the Career Planning subtask of the SDTLA; cmeasured by the
Lifestyle Planning subtask of the SDTLA.

*p <= .05

137

The interaction of the effect of mother’s education, father’s education, and family
members with a similar career on the dependent variable of career and lifestyle
development was examined using a multiple regression model. The model
explained little of the variance in the scores on career and lifestyle development
(R2 = 0.55). No interaction effect was observed due to the fact that parental
education did not have a significant relationship to the dependent variable in the

correlational analysis (see Table 14).

138

Table 14

Regression of Family Characteristics on Career and Lifestyle Development

 

 

Mother’s Father’s Family Members
Education Education wI Same Career
Dependent
variable ’3 t ’3 t 3 ’
Career and lifestyle -.130 -1.359 .077 .800 .204 2296*
development8
Note: n = 130

aMeasured by the Establishing and Clarifying Purpose Task of the SDTLA.

*p < .05

139

Hypotheses Testing

The statistical analysis previously described provided the criteria for decisions to
reject or not reject each null hypothesis. The discussion of hypothesis testing
proceeds in this section by addressing each research question and specifying
those null hypotheses that were rejected based on the statistical tests. The
summary of results provides additional narrative of each research question and

the results of investigation.

Research Question #1 : Classification

Correlation coefficients (Spearrnan’s rho) provided the indicator of relationships
between classification and the dependent variables of career and lifestyle
development, career behaviors, educational involvement, lifestyle behaviors, and
cultural participation. A weak but significant relationship existed between
classification and career and lifestyle development (.188). The corresponding

hypothesis is as follows:

H01: The career and lifestyle development for FCS female undergraduates will

not differ significantly based on classification.

Hypothesis 1 was rejected at the p < .05 level.

A weak but significant relationship existed between classification and career

behaviors (.177). The corresponding hypothesis is as follows:

140

H02: The career behaviors of female undergraduates will not differ significantly

based on classification.

Hypothesis 2 was rejected at the p < .05 level.

A weak but significant relationship existed between classification and educational

involvement (.255). The corresponding hypothesis is as follows:

H03: The educational involvement of female undergraduates will not differ

significantly based on classification.

Hypothesis 3 was rejected at the p < .01 level.

Hypothesis 4, lifestyle behaviors, and Hypothesis 5, Cultural Participation, were

not rejected.

Research Question #2: Point of Entry into Major

As with Research Question #1, Spearrnan’s rank-order correlation coefficients
provided the indicator of relationships between point of entry into major and the
dependent variables of career and lifestyle development, career behaviors,
educational involvement, lifestyle behaviors, and cultural participation. None of
the relationships were statistically significant at the p < .05 level. The
corresponding null hypotheses were not rejected: Hypothesis 6, Career and
Lifestyle Development; Hypothesis 7, Career Behaviors; Hypothesis 8,
Educational Involvement; Hypothesis 9, Lifestyle Behaviors; and Hypothesis 10,

Cultural Participation.

141

Research Question #3: Interaction of Classification and Point of Entry

A multiple regression model investigated the interaction effect of classification
and point of entry into major on the dependent variables of career and lifestyle
development, career behaviors, educational involvement, lifestyle behaviors, and
cultural participation. Because point of entry into major did not have a significant
effect on any of the dependent variables, there was no interaction effect
observed. The corresponding null hypotheses were not rejected: Hypothesis 11
Career and Lifestyle Development; Hypothesis 12, Career Behaviors; Hypothesis
13, Educational Involvement; Hypothesis 14, Lifestyle Behaviors; and Hypothesis

15, Cultural Participation.

Research Question #4: Certification track

Because the participants were divided into two groups by majors with associated
certification procedures and majors without associated certification procedures, t-
tests provided the indicators of differences between the groups. No significant
differences were found on the mean scores for the dependent variables of career
and lifestyle development, career behaviors, educational involvement, lifestyle
behaviors, and cultural participation. The corresponding null hypotheses were
not rejected: Hypothesis 16 Career and Lifestyle Development; Hypothesis 17,
Career Behaviors; Hypothesis 18, Educational Involvement; Hypothesis 19,

Lifestyle Behaviors; and Hypothesis 20, Cultural Participation.

142

Research Question #5: Family Background Characteristics

Correlation coefficients provided the indicators of relationships between parental
education levels and number of family members with a similar career. No
significant relationships were observed between mother’s education level or
father’s education level and the dependent variables of career and lifestyle
development, career behaviors, educational involvement, lifestyle behaviors, and
cultural participation. For mother’s education level, the corresponding null
hypotheses were not rejected: Hypothesis 21, Career and Lifestyle
Development; Hypothesis 24, Career Behaviors; Hypothesis 27, Educational
Involvement; Hypothesis 30, Lifestyle Behaviors; and Hypothesis 33, Cultural
Participation. For father’s education level, the corresponding null hypotheses
were not rejected: Hypothesis 22, Career and Lifestyle Development; Hypothesis
25, Career Behaviors; Hypothesis 28, Educational Involvement; Hypothesis 31,

Lifestyle Behaviors; and Hypothesis 34, Cultural Participation.

A weak but significant relationship was observed between number of family
members with a similar career and the dependent variable of career and lifestyle

development (.201). The corresponding hypothesis is as follows:

H023: Number of family members with a similar career will not have a significant
effect on the developmental progress in career and lifestyle development for

FCS female undergraduates.

Hypothesis 23 was rejected at the p < .05 level.

143

A weak but significant relationship was observed between number of family
members with a similar career and the dependent variable of career behaviors

(.185). The corresponding hypothesis is as follows:

H026: Number of family members with a similar career will not have a significant

effect on the development of career behaviors for FCS female undergraduates.

Hypothesis 26 was rejected at the p < .05 level.

A weak but significant relationship was observed between number of family
members with a similar career and the dependent variable of educational

involvement (.172). The corresponding hypothesis is as follows:

H029: Number of family members with a similar career will not have a significant

effect on educational involvement for FCS female undergraduates.

Hypothesis 29 was rejected at the p < .05 level.

No significant effects were observed for number of family members with a similar
career and the dependent variables of lifestyle behaviors and cultural
participation. Hypothesis 32, Lifestyle Behaviors, and Hypothesis 35, Cultural

Participation, were not rejected.

Research Question #6: Interaction of Family Characteristics

A multiple regression model investigated the interaction effect of mother’s
education level, father’s education level, and number of family members with a

similar career on the dependent variable of career and lifestyle development.

144

Because neither mother's education nor father’s education had an effect on this
variable independently, no interaction effect was observed. The corresponding

null hypothesis, Hypothesis 36, was not rejected.
Summary of Results

A summary of the analysis concludes the results section, organized by research

questions for reinforcement.

Research Question #1 : Classification

What is the relationship between classification and career and lifestyle
development (represented by career behaviors, educational involvement,
lifestyle behaviors, and cultural participation) for FCS female
undergraduates?

There is a weak but significant positive relationship between classification and
career and lifestyle development, as well as the dependent variables of career
behaviors and educational involvement. For all three measures, the data implies
that the higher the classification of the participant, the higher the score on the
Student Developmental Tasks and Lifestyle Assessment. No significant
relationship was observed between classification and the dependent variables of

lifestyle behaviors and cultural participation.

145

Research Question #2: Point of Entry into Major

What is the relationship between point of entry into major and career and
lifestyle development (represented by career behaviors, educational

involvement, lifestyle behaviors, and cultural participation) for FCS female
undergraduates?

Although not statistically significant in the study, there are very weak negative
relationships between point of entry into major and the dependent variables in
the study. The data implies whether one enters the major as a freshman or
chooses the major later in the college career has no or very little effect on career

and lifestyle development.

Research Question #3: Interaction of Classification and Point of Entry

What is the interaction of the effects of classification and point of entry
into major career and lifestyle development (represented by career
behaviors, educational involvement, lifestyle behaviors, and cultural
participation) for FCS female undergraduates?

The interaction model of classification and point of entry into major on career and
lifestyle development explained a small percentage of the variance, but because
there were no significant relationships for point of entry into major, there was no

interaction effect observed.

146

Research Question #4: Certification track

What is the relationship between certification track (concentration) and
career and lifestyle development (represented by career behaviors,
educational involvement, lifestyle behaviors, and cultural participation) for
FCS female undergraduates?

The majors were grouped by certification or licensure characteristics, because it
was proposed that a more precise set of steps in career preparation would
predict higher scores in career and lifestyle development. However, a
comparison of the means of the two groups, certification track and non-

certification track, revealed no significant differences.

Research Question #5: Family Background Characteristics

What is the effect of mother’s education level, father’s education level,
and number of family members in a similar career on career and lifestyle
development for FCS female undergraduates?

Neither mother’s education level nor father’s education level was significantly
correlated to the dependent variables of the study. Weak but positive
relationships were observed for number of family members with a similar career
and the dependent variables of career and lifestyle development, career

behaviors, and educational involvement.

Research Question #6: Interaction of Family Characteristics

What is the interaction effect of mother’s education level, father’s
education level, and number of family members in a similar career on
career and lifestyle development for FCS female undergraduates?

147

The multiple regression model investigating the interaction effect of mother’s
education level, father’s education level, and number of family members with a
similar career on the dependent variable explained very little of the variance. No
interaction effect was observed because two of the independent variables, both
mother’s and father’s education, did not have a significant effect on the

dependent variable for the sample.

148

Chapter 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The exploration of the development of career and lifestyle behaviors within the
context of college student development for undergraduate female family and
consumer sciences students attempts to determine the relationships between
student and family characteristics and career and lifestyle development. Career
and lifestyle development is conceptualized as behaviors related to planning for
a career and lifestyle, maximizing educational resources while in college, and
experiencing new or different cultures or fine arts, as measured by the Student
Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment. Student characteristics include
time in school as measured by classification (freshman through senior, collected
via the SDTLA), timing of choosing the career as measured by point of entry into
major (which quarter was the major declared), and certification track as
measured by concentration or major, both of which were collected via a
demographic questionnaire. Family characteristics include mother’s education
level, father’s education level, and number of family members with a similar
career, collected via a demographic questionnaire. This chapter discusses the
findings in relation to past research, describes the conclusions of the study, and

makes recommendations for future investigations.

Surveys were administered in selected Human Ecology-related courses to
currently enrolled university students majoring in one of the degree programs
within the Human Ecology unit. A total of 145 surveys were completed, fourteen

of which were not used due to missing data or data that fell outside of the target

149

population. The final sample consisted of 131 completed SDTLA and

demographic surveys.

Career and Lifestyle Development

Research on college students and career development has emphasized
important developmental tasks that occur for university students preparing for
work and life after college. Although not exclusive to one age or prescribed
sequence, completion of these tasks has a relationship to gender, amount of
time in school, and family-related factors (Winston, et al., 1999b). The tasks of
interest in this study concern developing purpose, conceptualized as career and

lifestyle development, and developing integrity (matching behaviors to values).

The Relationship of Student Characteristics

The findings imply there is a slight positive relationship between time in school
(classification of the college student) and greater career and lifestyle
development, in that as classification moves from freshman to senior, scores
increase marginally in the sample. The career and lifestyle development is
supported by career planning behaviors and educational involvement activities,
as observed in the present study. A significant but weak positive relationship
exists in the sample between levels of classification and scores on career
behaviors and educational involvement, similarly to the overall task of career and
lifestyle development. Previous research studies indicated a stronger relationship

between classification and the dependent variables than is seen in the present

150

study (Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Dawson-Threat, 1993; Winston, et al,
1999b).

Several factors could have affected the findings on classification for the present
study. The Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment measures
classification with a multiple-choice item for which participants indicate status as
a freshman, sophomore, junior, or senior. More effective measurement strategy
would be to request the number of hours earned or to request permission to
consult student records to determine number of hours earned. This
measurement would be more continuous in scale and would capture more of the

true variance in the sample.

The process of choosing a career is not a primary focus of this study, although
related to the topic. However, a related construct is examined, that of the timing
of declaring a major - when was the career decision made? Career counseling
research has focused on intervention strategies to reduce career indecision
(Guerra & Braungart-Rieker, 1999; Jurgens, 2000), recognizing the critical
importance of family influences on both the process and the end result of the
career decision. Dawson-Threat (1993) found that female students were half as
likely as males to declare a major in the freshmen year. The pilot study that
preceded the present study hinted at a relationship between amount of time in
major and career and lifestyle development. These studies led to the
examination of point of entry into major in the present study. Although none of
the relationships between point of entry and the dependent variables are

significant, weak negative relationships exist between point of entry into major

151

and the dependent variables representing career and lifestyle development.
There may be a trend in which the earlier one enters a major, the greater the
career and lifestyle development. Additional measurement of the timing of
declaring a major may provide the necessary data to observe the relationship,

such as asking “how many quarters have you pursued this major?”

Certification (passing a certifying or licensing exam or completing a structured
internship) seems to have little or no effect on career and lifestyle development
in this study. The convenience sample limits the analysis of this relationship in
that the two groups, certification track and non-certification track, are not equal.
Additionally, freshmen and sophomores may not have as much awareness of
certification procedures as do juniors and seniors, but the cell size of the
classification groups did not allow for the level of analysis needed to factor out
the effects of classification on the relationship of certification track to career and
lifestyle development. Additional demographic questions addressing the
participant’s awareness of certification procedures would strengthen the

investigation of this issue.

The Relationship of Family Background Characteristics

Family background can have an effect on various aspects of college student
development (Guerra 8 Braungart-Rieker, 1999; Pascarella 8 Terenzini, 1991;
Pearson 8 Bruess, 2001; Strange 8 Banning, 2001;). Recent research using the
Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory (Pearson 8 Bruess, 2001)

collected additional qualitative information on the respondents’ perception of

152

influences on their development while in college. Women and men in the study
mentioned relationships and personal values as prominent influences on their
development, highlighting concepts that corroborate Chickering’s Vector Theory
of College Student Development. The Pearson and Bruess study echoes themes
from Mumme (1997), who reported that significant others and personal were
important predictors of the choice to major in family and consumer sciences.
Older research studies also corroborated the influence of family members on the
choice of a family and consumer sciences career (Stout, et al., 1981; Aadland, et

al., 1983).

Issues of relationships have particular relevance to women’s development while
in college. Studies from Schultheiss and Blustein (1994) and Luzzo (1995)
reported gender differences on relevant constructs of relationships, identity, and
career maturity. When measuring women’s development in college using
measures like the SDTLA, these researchers found that women’s scores were
higher than men’s on issues of identity formation and career maturity because of
greater emphasis women place on relationships. All of these studies set the
stage for the examination of the influence of significant others, primarily family

members, on career choice in the present study.

Findings from the present study indicate a significant but weak positive
relationship between the number of family members in a similar career and
scores on dependent variables of career and lifestyle development, career
behaviors, and educational involvement. The more family members in a similar

career, the greater the career and lifestyle development. However, lifestyle

153

behaviors and cultural participation are not significantly correlated to number of

family members with a similar career for the present study.

There is a dearth of research in the area of peer influence on career and major
choice for college students. Although some of the literature reviewed for the
present study indicated the effect of “significant persons” on career choice, these
studies do not distinguish between family members and peers. The inclusion of
the influence of friends, acquaintances, or romantic others could possibly explain
or enlighten the relationships of family background characteristics to career and

lifestyle development.

Limitations of the Study

The convenience sample was drawn from a small public university in the South.
An unusually high percentage of the sample participants were from well-
educated, high-income families. The level of parents’ education is not
significantly related to any of the dependent variables of career and lifestyle
development in the present study. However, it is interesting to note the high level
of parental education overall, especially father’s education level. Mother’s and
father’s careers were not examined for their effect on the dependent variables
(i.e., career and lifestyle development, career behaviors, lifestyle behaviors,
educational involvement, and cultural participation), but the higher percentages
of executive, academic, administrative, and entrepreneurial careers are of
interest, as are the higher percentages of families with annual income levels

$60,000 or higher. Young women from families such as these may have very

154

specific notions of the necessity of work outside the home and the relevance of

career planning to lifestyle planning issues.

The research needs to acknowledge that career and lifestyle development of the
sample may be affected by perceptions of work that were not measured, such as
the sample participants’ intent to work outside the home and family. Regional or
cultural perceptions of gender roles and work, especially those of Southern
women, have not been sufficiently addressed either in this study or in the body of
literature. These perceptions also affect the development of lifestyle behaviors,
which seem to have no significant relationships with the independent variables of

interest.

Additionally, no significant relationships seem to exist between the independent
variables of student characteristics or family background characteristics and
cultural participation activities. However, the location of the data collection may
have an unmeasured influence on this relationship, as well. The university
campus from which the sample was drawn has a limited number of multicultural
or ethnic diversity events, and fine arts events are not readily available or overtly
promoted. The university is in a rural area, with the nearest city about 70 miles
away. Less opportunity to experience cultural activities may directly affect the
lack of significant relationships between independent variables and cultural

participation in this study.

The measurement tools, the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle

Assessment (SDTLA) and the researcher-constructed demographic

155

questionnaire, may have limited the investigation of the variables in the present
study. The authors of the SDTLA (Winston, Miller, and Cooper, 1999)
acknowledge that the subscales that measure career behaviors, lifestyle
behaviors, educational involvement, and cultural participation are highly
correlated with each other. The lack of significant relationships observed for
lifestyle behaviors and cultural participation may have mitigated the effect of the
independent variables on career behaviors and educational involvement, and
ultimately affected the relationships to the composite variable of career and
lifestyle development. The demographic questionnaire, as an exploratory
researcher-constructed instrument, needs more refinement and investigation of

reliability and validity.

Conclusions

The presence of a significant relationship between classification and the
dependent variables of career behaviors and educational involvement, as well as
a significant relationship between the number of family members with the same
career and career behaviors and educational involvement, corroborates the
research of previous studies (Dawson-Threat, 1993; Winston, et al., 1999bS).
However, the results of the present study do not support a main premise of the
conceptual model, that the development of lifestyle behaviors and cultural
participation has a reciprocal relationship with the development of career
behaviors and educational involvement. Additionally, the observed relationship
between time in school and career and lifestyle development is not as strong in

the present study as has been reported in other research.

156

Whether or not a family and consumer sciences student has family members in
a similar career has a marginal effect on career and lifestyle development in the
sample. The further investigation of family background characteristics and their
potential relationships to the dependent variables would be worthwhile.
Development of a more extensive demographic questionnaire could facilitate
collecting information on multiple contexts and intensities of family member’s

influence on development of purpose.

Recommendations

The results of this study invite further investigation and corroboration. As an
exploratory, cross-sectional study, it is a first step in the examination of career
and lifestyle development for family and consumer sciences students.
Recommendations are made for future research, for programming for

undergraduate Family and Consumer Sciences students, and for theory building.

Implications for Future Research

Future research into the issues of career and lifestyle development for college
students in Family and Consumer Sciences should expand and enhance the
investigation reported here. The improvement of the demographic questionnaire
should include specific questions addressing the constructs of interest. The
effect of certification procedures on career preparation could be assessed by
asking for the participant’s perceptions of whether they are pursuing a general
FCS major or a specialized major (Butler, et al., 1987). An open-ended question

allowing the participant to list career-related experiences such as part-time or

157

volunteer work could investigate the existence of other influences on career
planning behaviors. Because students often solidify their association with the
profession through experiences while in college, participants also should be
asked to identify experiences in content courses or extra-curricular organizations

that helped them understand the Family and Consumer Sciences profession.

The present study utilized cross-sectional, quantitative methodology to
investigate the relationships of certain independent variables to career and
lifestyle development for a very specific population of college students. However,
additional methods of data collection greatly could enhance the investigation.
The process of choosing a career is complex and includes a time dimension that
would be captured more effectively with qualitative methodology — a series of
guided self-exploration activities, observations, and interviews. Integrating
qualitative methods with quantitative instrumentation can enrich future studies as
well as operationalize an ecological perspective. A longitudinal design could
follow progress in development for FCS undergraduates from the entering
freshman to the graduating senior, with repeated administration of the SDTLA
and Demographic Questionnaire. Because career and lifestyle development
continues throughout the lifespan, a follow-up procedure could examine the
cohort five years after graduation, then ten years after graduation. Additionally,
the expansion of the population to include academic units across the university
structure, FCS units in other universities in the South, and students from other
parts of the country would provide interesting comparisons based on major or

career.

158

Future studies could benefit from enhancements in methodology and in more
precise investigation of relationships among the primary constructs. The findings
from this study indicate there may be a pattern associated with timing of
declaring a major; the earlier one declares a major, the greater the career and
lifestyle development. Because there was insufficient significant evidence in the
present study, replication of the hypothesized relationships in future studies may
be illuminating. Data collection from a larger and more equally distributed sample
would allow for more powerful statistical analysis of variance among the
respondents. Additionally, an experimental design could measure change in
career and lifestyle development after exposure to coursework activities with a

career and lifestyle focus.

Refining the constructs of classification, point of entry into major, family
background characteristics, and the interrelationship of subtasks could provide
greater richness and accuracy in measurement. Classification is reported simply
as freshman, sophomore, junior, or senior; additional information on number of
hours accrued would yield a truer reflection of the variance for length of time in
school. The study of the effect of point of entry into major could be enhanced by
determining how many quarters the student has pursued the current major, and
asking for additional feedback on what factors influenced the choice of major.
The interrelationship of dependent variables such as career behaviors,
educational involvement, lifestyle behaviors, and cultural participation could be

explored with additional data collection instruments or more sophisticated

159

modeling. Finally, collecting information on peer influences on career preparation

and lifestyle visioning could strengthen research.

Because personal values are inherent in the dependent variables of the present
study, expanding the research to examine the values of the Family and
Consumer Sciences students could offer further insights into career and lifestyle
development. Prior research has investigated the values of college students
pursuing this field (Lorenz, 1970; Parrish, 1975) and career development of FCS
students (Dawson-Threat, 1993; Mumme, 1997), but not both issues in the same
study. A more sophisticated modeling of interrelationships, based upon this
researcher’s visualization of the Chickering 8 Reisser Vector Theory, needs to
be examined in future studies, as well. The structuring of the proposed
interrelationship of career development and lifestyle development could lead to

more intriguing analysis and hypothesis testing.

Implications for Programming

The findings from this study provide insights for approaches to working with
college students, women, and family and consumer sciences majors. The
weakness of the positive relationship between classification and career and
lifestyle development indicates that faculty advisors could place more emphasis
on career preparation for juniors and seniors to help solidify their directions.
Additionally, because the strength of the positive effect on career and lifestyle

development relied on the two supporting areas of career behaviors and

160

educational involvement, more structured approaches to developing lifestyle

behaviors and cultural participation would benefit students.

Professionals in the field would serve the future of the profession by recognizing
the relationship between number of family members in a similar career and
greater career and lifestyle development for college women. Because
relationships play such an important role in development for college women, and
because the field of Family And Consumer Sciences is a female-dominated field,
current professionals and faculty recruiters could increase the quality and
quantity of future FCS professionals by acknowledging the effect of relationships

on choosing a major.

Although the present study is but a beginning attempt to investigate career
development for professionals in the field of Family and Consumer Sciences, the
findings reinforce some of the key suppositions of the researcher. The evidence
that career behaviors and educational involvement are higher based on amount
of time in school, as well as the suggestion that relationships can have influence
on the choice of a career in FCS, both emphasize the unique aspects of
preparing professionals for improving the quality of life for individuals and

families.
Implications for Theory Building

The results of the present study can contribute to the growth of theory in three

areas - the improvement of instrumentation, the enhancement of college student

161

development theory, and the corroboration of aspects of Family and Human

Ecology perspectives.

The authors of the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment have
collected a normative data set over the past several decades. The results of the
present study will be added to the data set to expand and enhance it. The
normative data represent male and female college students from across the
nation in a variety of majors and demographic backgrounds. However, the
publishers of the instrument do not provide a breakdown of mean scores on
subscales by major or career choice. The comparison of a subset of college
students to the normative set would benefit from an expansion of the normative

data by more specific categories.

The researcher contributed to the Vector Theory of College Student
Development published by Chickering and Reisser by constructing the
visualization of the theory. Although the Vector Theory has been researched and
refined in multiple settings since its beginnings in 1969, a visualization of the
concepts has not been widely published. Additionally, this researcher’s
visualization proposes the interrelationship of the vectors of developing purpose
and developing integrity, the examination of which could enhance the theory

itself.

The influence of family background characteristics was measurable even in the
small sample within this study. The researcher expects to continue to view

college student development through the perspectives of family and human

162

ecology in order to further corroborate the effect of family on the growth and
development of the college student. Family and human ecology theory will also

benefit the comparison of FCS students to other disciplines, professions, or

majors.

163

Appendix A:

Demographic Questionnaire

164

INFORMED CONSENT

TITLE OF PROJECT: An Exploration of the Integration of Career and Lifestyle Behaviors
as Related to College Student Development for Undergraduate Female Family and Consumer
Sciences Students.

PURPOSE OF STUDYIPROJECT: To determine the relationships, if any, among choice of
major, classification, family characteristics, and completion of developmental tasks associated with
college students.

PROCEDURE: Subjects will voluntarily complete a self-report survey instrument assessing
completion of developmental tasks. Data will then be analyzed to determine the relationship among
the stated variables.

INSTRUMENTS AND MEASURES TO INSURE PROTECTION OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND
ANONYMITY: The instrument used in this study assesses completion of those developmental tasks
associated with typical young adult growth and development. The page following this consent form
allows you to request that the analysis results be sent to you. In order to send only your individual
results, the researcher will match your research code on the answer form to the research code on the
cover sheet. Only the researcher will view your survey, and all information will be held in strict
confidentiality. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

RISKSIALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS: There are no risks associated with participation in this study.
Your participation is voluntary.

TIME COMMITMENT: The instrument takes approximately 30 to 40 minutes to complete.
BENEFITS/COMPENSATION: None.

You are asked to voluntarily participate in the research study described above, “An Exploration of the
Integration of Career and Lifestyle Behaviors as Related to College Student Development for
Undergraduate Female Family and Consumer Sciences Students “. Your participation in this
research is strictly voluntary and participation or refusal to participate in this study will not affect your
relationship with Louisiana Tech University or your instructor in any way. You may withdraw at any
time or refuse to answer any questions without penalty. Once you have completed the study, the
results will be freely available to you upon request. The results of your survey will be confidential,
accessible only to the principal investigators, yourself, or a legally appointed representative.

 

Name of Participant (please print)

 

Signature of Participant Date

CONTACT INFORMATION: The investigators listed below may be reached to answer questions
about the research, subjects’ rights, or related matters.

Delene W. Lautigar June Youatt, Ph.D. Norma Bobbitt, Ph.D.
(318) 257-4412 (517) 423-2295 (517) 432-2270
lautigar@hec.latech.edu youatt@msu.edu nbobbitt@msu.edu

The University Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) of Michigan State
University may also be contacted if a problem cannot be discussed with the investigator.
UCRIHS Chair. Ashir Kumar, M.D. 355-2180

165

HUMAN SUBJECTS CONSENT FORM (Louisiana Tech University)

TITLE OF PROJECT: An exploration of college student development and career
choice.

PURPOSE OF STUDY/PROJECT: To detennlne the relationships, if any, among choice of
major, classification, and completion of developmental tasks associated with college
students.

PROCEDURE: Human Ecology majors will voluntarily complete a self-report survey
instrument assessing completion of devel0pmental tasks. Data will then be analyzed to
detennlne the relationship among the stated variables.

INSTRUMENTS AND MEASURES TO INSURE PROTECTION OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND
ANONYMITY: The instrument used in this study assesses completion of those
developmental tasks associated with typical young adult growth and development. The cover
sheet allows you to request that the analysis results be sent to you. In order to send only your
individual results, the researcher will match your researchcode on the answer form to the
research code on the cover sheet. Only the researcher will view your survey, and all
information will be held In strict confidentiality.

RISKSIALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS: There are no risks associated with participation In this
study. Your participation is voluntary.

BENEFITSICOMPENSATION: None.

I, , attest with my signature that I have read and
understood the preceding description of the study, “ An exploration of college student
development and career choice, “ and its purposes and methods. I understand that my
participation in this research is strictly voluntary and my participation or refusal to participate
In this study will not affect my relationship with Louisiana Tech University or my grades In
any way. Further, I understand that I may withdraw at any time or refuse to answer any
questions without penalty. Upon completion of the study, I understand that the results will be
freely available to me upon request. I understand that the results of my survey will be
anonymous and confidential, accessible only to the principal investigators, myself, or a
legally appointed representative. I have not been requested to waive nor do I waive any of my
rights related to participating In this study.

 

Signature of Participant Date

CONTACT INFORMATION: The principal Investigator listed below may be reached to
answer questions about the research, subjects’ rights, or related matters.

Delene W. Lautigar
(318) 257-4412
lautigar@hec.latech.edu

Members of the Human Use Committee of Louisiana Tech University may also be contacted if
a problem cannot be discussed with the investigator:

Dr. Terry McConathy (257-2924)

Dr. Don Wells (257-4088)

Mrs. Deby Hamm (257-2924)

166

Research Code:

 

REQUEST FOR RESULTS: If you would like the results of your analysis sent to you, please
indicate below by printing the mailing address to which the results and potential strategies should be
mailed.

Name

 

Mailing Address

 

 

City, State, Zip Code

 

167

Cover Sheet for Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA)

Instructions: Please answer the following questions, plus questions A through G on the
Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment, in the spaces provided below and on the
next page. Then use the attached blue Scantron sheet to complete Parts 1 through 5 of the
SDTLA as directed in the survey booklet.

Please mark the box beside your major:

[3 Child Life [I Consumer Affairs [:1 Early Childhood Education
[:1 Family Studies [:1 FCS Education [J Merchandising

[:i Nutrition and Dietetics

When did you enter this major? Place an "X” in the appropriate box below:

 

 

 

Freshman Year Sophomore Year Junior Year Senior Year
Su Su Su Su
or F W Sp or F W Sp or F W Sp or F W Sp

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you were In a different major before 0113 one, please write It In the blank below:

 

Are your parents:

D Married [:1 Not married E] Separated
D Divorced but not remarried D Divorced and one parent remarried
D Divorced and both parents remarried

Which of the categories below best describes your mother’s career?

[:1 executive/managerial [:i professional (doctor, lawyer)

D academic/educator (teacher) D computer technical/engineering

D service/customer support El clerical/administrative

I: sales/marketing D tradesmanlcraftsman

D college or graduate student El homemaker

El self employed (own company) D unemployed D retired

168

 

Which of the categories below best describes your mother’s education level?

[I grade school/junior high [:1 some high school
D high school diploma '3 some college D bachelor’s degree
CI some graduate school D master's degree [:l doctor’s degree

Which of the categories below best describes your father's career?

E] executive/managerial El professional (doctor, lawyer)

[:1 academic/educator (teacher) I: computer technical/engineering

[:1 service/customer support [3 clerical/administrative

[:1 sales/marketing Ci tradesmen/craftsman [:1 college or graduate student
[:I homemaker E] self employed (own company)

El unemployed E] retired

Which of the categories below best describes your father's education level?

B grade school/junior high D some high school
[:1 high scth diploma E] some college [:I bachelor‘s degree
E] some graduate school C] master’s degree D doctor’s degree

How many of your family members have careers like your major or one of the other majors listed
previously?

[:I No family members with a similar career C] One family member
[:1 Two family members [:1 Three or more family members

What is the annual income level of your family?

I] Don’t know I] Below $20,000 D $20,000 - $40,000
[3 $40,000 - $60,000 C] $60,000 - $80,000 [:1 $80,000 - $100,000
[:1 Over $100,000

169

Please refer to page 2 of the SDTLA for the following questions, checking the box to the
left of your response or writing in your answer below:

A. D 1 Male D 2 Female

B.
C. D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7
0. D1 D2 D3 D4

E. D1 D2 D3 D4 D5

F. D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

G. D1 D2

 

170

Appendix B:

Human Subjects Approval

171

STUDYIPROJECT INFORMATION FOR HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE

TITLE: An Exploration of the Integration of Career and Lifestyle Behaviors as Related to
College Student Development for Undergraduate Female Family and Consumer Sciences
Students

PROJECT DIRECTOR: Delene W. Lautigar
DEPARTMENT: Family and Child Ecology, College of Human Ecology

PURPOSE OF STUDY/PROJECT: To determine the relationships, if any, among Choice of
major, classification, family characteristics, and completion of developmental tasks associated
with college students.

SUBJECTS: Louisiana Tech University students who are pursuing degrees from the School of
Human Ecology. Subjects may be enrolled in a Human Ecology course and surveyed with the
cooperation of the instructor, or recruited through advertisements posted within the building
housing the department.

PROCEDURE: Approximately 150 Human Ecology majors will voluntarily complete a self-report
survey instrument assessing completion of developmental tasks. Data will then be analyzed to
determine the relationship among the stated variables.

INSTRUMENTS AND MEASURES TO INSURE PROTECTION OF CONFIDENTIALITY,
ANONYMITY: The 153 item Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment
(SDTLA) developed by Roger Winston, Ted Miller, and Diane Cooper (1999) will assess
completion of developmental tasks. A brief self-report instrument will collect demographic data not
included in the SDTLA, including choice of major, length of time (measured in academic quarters)
in that major, and family career and income characteristics. All collected information will be coded
to maintain anonymity during analysis. A participant may waive anonymity in order to receive his
or her individual analysis results after the study. Otherwise, all information will remain confidential
and be viewed only by the researcher.

RISKSIALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS: There are no risks associated with participation in this
study. Participants voluntarily complete the survey described above, with no alternative
treatments.

BENEFITS/COMPENSATION: None.
SAFEGUARDS OF PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING: This study does not
involve treatment or physical contact. Except for the waiver of anonymity mentioned previously, all

information will be held strictly confidential. Only the researcher will have access to the survey
results and analysis.

172

MICHIGAN STATE
U N I V E R S I T Y
January 23, 2002

 

TO: June Pierce YOUATT
148 Human Ecology

RE: IRB # 01-851 CATEGORY: 1-C EXEMPT

TITLE: . AN EXPLORATION OF CAREER AND LIFESTYLE INTEGRATION BEHAVIORS AS
RELATED TO COLLEGE STUDENT DEVELOPMENT FOR UNDERGRADUATE FEMALE
FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES STUDENTS

ANNUAL APPROVAL DATE: January 7. 2002
REVISION REQUESTED: January 14. 2002
REVISION APPROVAL DATE: January 23, 2002

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this project is
complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be
adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore, the
UCRIHS APPROVED THIS PROJECT'S REVISION.

Approves the change in Primary Investigators from N. Bobbitt to J. Youatt.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval date
shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green renewal form.
A maximum of four such expedited renewal are possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project
beyond that time need to submit it again for a complete review.
REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior to
initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please use the green renewal form.
To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written request to the
UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRB# and title. Include in
your request a description of the change and any revised instruments, consent forms or
advertisements that are applicable. _
PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work, notify
OFFICE“ UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human
RESEARCH subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to the
AND human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved.
GRADUATE If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at (517) 355—2180 or via email:
STUDIES UCRIHS@msu.edu.

 

Ivarstty Committee on
Research lmhlag
Human Subjects

Michigan State University

SAdministmion Building 1. I (W
East Lz'lsing, Michigm

sums-2180 Ashir Kumar, M.D.
FAX‘ 517053-2975 Chair, UCRIHS
Minstrel/ileum
s-Mailzucilsamedu AK: kj

Sincerely,

   
 

cc: Delene Lautigar
215 Collie
Calhoun, LA 71225

asWDhusir 173

 

OFFICE or
RESEARCH
AND
GRADUATE
STUDIES

.IvIrstty Committee on
Research llrvolvlog
Human Subjects

Michigan Sate University
6 Administration Building
East Lamina, Midiigan
48824-1046
517B55-2180

FAX 517/353-2976
mrisuaduluserlucrihs
E-Mal'l: ucrihsOmsuedu

MICHIGAN STATE

 

UNIVERSITY

January 11, 2002

TO: Norma BOBBITT
8 Human Ecology

RE: IRB# 01-851 CATEGORY: EXEMPT 1-C
APPROVAL DATE: January 7, 2002

TITLE: AN EXPLORATION OF CAREER AND LIFESTYLE INTEGRATION
BEHAVIORS AS RELATED TO COLLEGE STUDENT DEVELOPMENT FOR
UNDERGRADUATE FEMALE FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES
STUDENTS '

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this

project is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human

subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are
appropriate. Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval date
shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green renewal
form. A maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to continue a
project beyond that time need to submit it again for a complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any Changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior
to initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please use the green renewal
form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written
request to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the project‘s IRB#
and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments,
consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMSICHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work,
notify UCRIHS promptly 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving
human subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating
greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and
approved.

If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at (517) 355-2180 or via email:
UCRIHS@msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web:
http:/Mwmsueduluser/ucrihs

Sincerely, M
hir Kumar, MD.
UCRIHS Chair
Alt bd
cc: Delene Lautigar
215 Collie "

Calhoun, LA 71225
174

It.

L.OUISIANAATEC

L'Nt\«’:i’\>ll‘r’

 

.VIE .VIORAND UM
TO: Delene W. Lautigar
FROM: Marilyn Robinson. Graduate School
SUBJECT: HIE/IAN USE COMMITTEE REVIEW
DATE: February 1. 2001

In order to facilitate your project. an EXPEDITED REVIEW has been done for your proposed
Study entitled:

‘.-“~.n exploration of college student development and career choice.”
PrOposal = I-Ll

The proposed study procedures were found to provide reasonable and adequate safeguards againsr
possible risks involving human subjects. The information to be collected may be personal in nature
or implication. Therefore. diligent care needs to be taken to prorecr the privacy of the participants
and to assure that the data are kept confidential. Further. the subjects musr be informed that their
participation is voluntary.

Since your reviewed project appears to do no damage to the participants, the Human Use
Committee grants approval of the involvement of human subjects as outlined.

You are requested to maintain written records of your procedures, data collected, and subjects
involved. These records will need to be available upon request during the conduct of the study and

retained by the university for three years after the conclusion of the study.

If you have any quesrions, please give me a call at 257-2924.

175

Appendix C:

Analysis Plan

176

Table 15

Analysis Plan

 

1. What is the relationship between classification and career and lifestyle
development, represented by career behaviors, educational involvement, lifestyle
behaviors, and cultural participation, within the context of college student
development for female Family and Consumer Sciences undergraduates?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Independent Variable Scale of Survey Item
Measurement

Classification - freshman, Ordinal E (class standing)

sophomore, junior, or senior

Dependent Variable Scale of SDTLA Items Analysis

Measurement
Composite career and Ratio, Continuous All items from Speannan
lifestyle development following four variables rank-order
Correlation

Career behaviors Ratio, Continuous 90, 99, 109, 117, 123, Speannan

(labeled career 129, 132, 135, 138, rank-order

planning in SDTLA) 141, 144, 150, 151, Correlation
153

Educational Ratio, Continuous 89, 98, 103, 116, Speannan

involvement 122,128, 131, 134, rank-order
137, 140, 143, 147, Correlation
149, 152

Lifestyle behaviors Ratio, Continuous 2, 91, 100, 104, 110, Speannan

(labeled lifestyle 118, 124, 130, 133, rank-order

planning by SDTLA) 136, 139, 142, 145 Correlation

Cultural Participation Ratio, Continuous 9, 14, 19, 23, 31, 70, Speannan
93, 112, 120, 126 rank-order

Correlation

 

 

 

 

177

 

 

2. What is the relationship between point of entry into major (concentration) and
career and lifestyle development, represented by career behaviors, educational
involvement, lifestyle behaviors, and cultural participation, within the context of
college student development for female Family and Consumer Sciences

 

undergraduates?
Independent Variable Scale of Survey Item
Measurement
Point of Entry into Major Interval When did the participant enter

 

this major? (item on the
demographic questionnaire)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dependent Variable Scale of Meas. SDTLA Items Analysis
Career and lifestyle Ratio, Continuous All items from Spearman
development following four rank-order
variables Correlation
Career behaviors Ratio, Continuous 90, 99, 109, 117, 123, Speannan
(labeled career planning 129, 132, 135, 138, rank-order
in SDTLA) 141, 144, 150, 151, Correlation
153
Educational involvement Ratio, Continuous 89, 98, 103, 116, Speannan
122,128, 131, 134, rank-order
137, 140, 143, 147, Correlation
149, 152
Lifestyle behaviors Ratio, Continuous 2, 91, 100, 104, 110, Speannan
(labeled lifestyle 118, 124, 130, 133, rank-order
planning by SDTLA) 136, 139, 142, 145 Correlation
Cultural Participation Ratio, Continuous 9, 14, 19, 23, 31, 70, Speannan
93, 112, 120, 126 rank-order
Correlation

 

 

 

 

178

 

 

3. What is the interaction of the effect of classification on career and lifestyle
development and the effect of point of entry into major on career and lifestyle
development, represented by career behaviors, educational involvement, lifestyle
behaviors, and cultural participation, within the context of college student
development for female Family and Consumer Sciences undergraduates?

 

Independent Variables

Classification, Point of Entry into

Scale of Measurement

Treated as continuous; measure of a continuous

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Major (interaction effect) construct
Dependent Variable Scale of Measurement Analysis
Career and lifestyle development Continuous Multiple
Regression
Career Behaviors Continuous Multiple
Regression
Educational Involvement Continuous Multiple
Regression
Lifestyle Behaviors Continuous Multiple
Regression
Cultural Participation Continuous Multiple
Regression

 

 

 

179

 

 

4. What is the relationship between certification track (concentration) and career and
lifestyle development, represented by career behaviors, educational involvement,
lifestyle behaviors, and cultural participation, within the context of college student
development for female Family and Consumer Sciences undergraduates?

 

Independent Variable

Certification track

Nominal, discrete

 

Scale of Measurement

Survey Item

 

Major or Concentration
check box on
questionnaire
(recategorized into two

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

groups)

Dependent Variable Scale of Meas. SDTLA Items Analysis
Career and lifestyle Ratio, Continuous All items from T-test
development following four

variables
Career behaviors Ratio, Continuous 90, 99, 109, 117, T-test
(labeled career planning 123, 129, 132, 135,
in SDTLA) 138, 141, 144, 150,

1 51 , 1 53
Educational involvement Ratio, Continuous 89, 98, 103, 116, T-test

122,128,131,134,

137, 140, 143, 147,

149, 152
Lifestyle behaviors Ratio, Continuous 2, 91, 100, 104, T-test
(labeled lifestyle 110, 118, 124, 130,
planning by SDTLA) 133, 136, 139, 142,

145
Cultural Participation Ratio, Continuous 9, 14, 19, 23, 31, T-test

 

 

70, 93, 112, 120,
126

 

 

180

 

 

5. What is the relationship between family background characteristics and career
and lifestyle development, represented by career behaviors, educational
involvement, lifestyle behaviors, and cultural participation, within the context of
college student development for female Family and Consumer Sciences

undergraduates?

 

Independent Variable

Scale of Meas.

Item

SDTLA or Questionnaire

 

Mother’s Education Level

Continuous

 

 

Education level check box
on demographic

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

questionnaire

Dependent Variable Scale of Meas. SDTLA Items Analysis
Career and lifestyle Ratio, Continuous All items on Career Correlation
development Planning,

Educational

Involvement,

Lifestyle Planning,

and Cultural

Participation

subtasks
Career behaviors Ratio, Continuous 90, 99, 109, 117, Correlation
(labeled career planning 123, 129, 132, 135,
in SDTLA) 138, 141, 144, 150,

151, 153
Educational involvement Ratio, Continuous 89, 98, 103, 116, Correlation

122,128,131,134,

137, 140, 143, 147,

149, 152
Lifestyle behaviors Ratio, Continuous 2, 91, 100, 104, Correlation
(labeled lifestyle 110, 118, 124, 130,
planning by SDTLA) 133, 136, 139, 142,

145
Cultural Participation Ratio, Continuous 9, 14, 19, 23, 31, Correlation

 

 

70, 93, 112, 120,
126

 

 

181

 

 

5. continued What is the relationship between family background characteristics and
career and lifestyle development, represented by career behaviors, educational
involvement, lifestyle behaviors, and cultural participation, within the context of college
student development for female Family and Consumer Sciences undergraduates?

 

Independent Variable

Scale of Measurement

Survey Item

 

Father’s Education Level

Continuous

 

 

Education level check box
on demographic

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

questionnaire

Dependent Variable Scale of Measurement SDTLA Items Analysis
Career and lifestyle Ratio, Continuous All items on Career Correlation
development Planning,

Educational

Involvement,

Lifestyle Planning,

and Cultural

Participation

subtasks
Career behaviors Ratio, Continuous 90, 99, 109, 117, Correlation
(labeled career planning 123, 129, 132, 135,
in SDTLA) 138, 141, 144, 150,

151, 153
Educational involvement Ratio, Continuous 89, 98, 103, 116, Correlation

122,128, 131,134,

137, 140, 143, 147,

149, 152
Lifestyle behaviors Ratio, Continuous 2, 91, 100, 104, Correlation
(labeled lifestyle 110, 118, 124, 130,
planning by SDTLA) 133, 136, 139, 142,

145
Cultural Participation Ratio, Continuous 9, 14, 19, 23, 31, Correlation

 

 

70, 93, 112, 120,
126

 

 

182

 

 

5. continued What is the relationship between family background characteristics and
career and lifestyle development, represented by career behaviors, educational
involvement, lifestyle behaviors, and cultural participation, within the context of college
student development for female Family and Consumer Sciences undergraduates?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Independent Variable Scale of Measurement Survey Item
Family Members with Ordinal Check box on demographic
Similar Career questionnaire
Dependent Variable Scale of SDTLA Items Analysis
Measurement
Career and lifestyle Ratio, Continuous All items on Career Spearman

development

Planning, Educational rank-order
Involvement, Lifestyle Correlation
Planning, and Cultural
Participation subtasks

 

Career behaviors

Ratio, Continuous 90, 99, 109, 117, 123, Speannan

 

(labeled career planning 129, 132, 135, 138, rank-order

in SDTLA) 141, 144, 150, 151, Correlation
153

Educational involvement Ratio, Continuous 89, 98, 103, 116, Spearman
122,128, 131, 134, rank-order
137, 140, 143, 147, Correlation
149, 152

 

Lifestyle behaviors
(labeled lifestyle
planning by SDTLA)

Ratio, Continuous 2, 91, 100, 104, 110, Speannan
118, 124, 130, 133, rank-order
136, 139, 142, 145 Correlation

 

 

Cultural Participation

 

Ratio, Continuous 9, 14, 19, 23, 31, 70, Spearman
93, 112, 120, 126 rank-order
Correlation

 

 

 

183

 

 

6. What is the interaction effect of family characteristics on career and lifestyle
development, represented by career behaviors, educational involvement,
lifestyle behaviors, and cultural participation, within the context of college
student development for female Family and Consumer Sciences

 

 

 

 

undergraduates?
Independent Variables Scale of Measurement
Mother’s Education Level, Father's Continuous
Education Level, Family members with
similar career
Dependent Scale of Measurement SDTLA Items Analysis
Variable
Career and Ratio, Continuous All items on Career Multiple
lifestyle Planning, Educational Regression
development Involvement, Lifestyle
Planning, and Cultural
Participation subtasks

 

 

 

 

184

 

References

185

REFERENCES

Aadland, S. C., Dunkelberger, J. E., Molnar, J. J., & Purcell, M. L. G. (1983).
Similarities.dissimilarities among students in home economics majors at

Southern land-grant universities. Home Economics Research Journal, 12,
3-1 5.

Andrews, M. P., Bubolz, M. M., & Paolucci, B. (1980). An ecological approach to
study of the family. Marriage and Family Review, 3, 29-49.

Babbie, E. (1995). The practice of social research (7“ ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing.

Biddle, B. J.; Bank, B. J.; & Slavings, R. L. (1990). Modality of thought, campus
experiences, and the development of values. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82, 671 -682.

Blackhurst, A. E. (1995). The relationship between gender and student outcomes
in a freshman orientation course. Journal of the Freshman Year
Experience, 7, 63 — 80.

Bond, M. H. (1988). Finding universal dimensions of individual variation in
multicultural studies of values: The Rokeach and Chinese Value Surveys.
Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 1009-1015.

Bronner, E. (1998, January 12). College freshmen aiming for high marks in
income. New York Times.

Brown, D. (1970). Students’ vocational choices: A review and critique. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.

Brown, D. (19.96). Brown’s values-based, holistic model of career and life-role
choices and satisfaction. In D. Brown & L. Brooks, (Eds), Career Choice
and Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, D.; & Crace, R. K. (1996). Values in life role choices and outcomes: A
conceptual model. The Career Development Quarteriy, 44, 211-223.

Brown, D., & Crace, R. K. (1997). Life Values Inventory. Chapel Hill, NC: Life
Values Resources.

Bubolz, M. M. & Sontag, M. S. (1993). Human ecology theory. In P. Boss, et al.
(Eds), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual
approach. New York: Plenum.

186

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2001). Labor force statistics from the current
population survey: college enrollment and work activity of year 2000 high
school graduates. Retrieved August 27, 2001 from
http:llnews.releaselhsgec.nr0.htm

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2001). The employment situation news release table
a-3: employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by
educational attainment. Retrieved August 27, 2001 from
http:llnews.release/empsit.t03.htm

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2001). The employment situation news release table
a-7: reason for unemployment. Retrieved August 27, 2001 from
http:llnews.release/empsit.t07.htm

Butler, S., Ade-Ridder, L., Rudge, S., & Sensbach, C. (1987). Issues in home
economics: Opinions of specialists and generalists. Journal of Home
Economics, 79(3), 13-18.

Chickering, Arthur W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Clausell, M. (1998). Challenges and opportunities for family and consumer
sciences professionals in the new America. Joumal of Family and
Consumer Sciences, 90, 3-7.

Dawson-Threat, J. (1993). Career maturity of college seniors as a function of
gender, sex-role identification, and choice of major. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames.

Doyle, R. (1999). Men, women, and college. Scientific American, 281(4), 40.

Engle, S. (n.d.). The nation’s female freshmen lack computer confidence, UCLA
study reveals. In L.J. Sax, A.W. Astin, W.S. Korn, & K.M. Mahoney,
(2000). The American freshman: national norms for Fall 2000. Los
Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute. Retrieved August 27, 2001
from http:llwww.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/heri.htm

Erickson, D. (2001). lntemational students at Louisiana Tech. Retrieved October
25, 2001 from Louisiana Tech University, lntemational Students Office
Web site: http:llwww.latech.edu/techladmissions/isofisa.htm

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: youth and crisis. New York: W. W. Norton.

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in
college: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

187

 

Firebaugh, F. M., & Miller, J. R. (2000). Diversity and globalization: Challenges,
opportunities, and promise. Joumal of Family and Consumer Sciences,
92, 27-36.

Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press.

Gottfredson, L. S. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental
theory of occupational aspirations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28,
545-587.

Grube, J. W.; Mayton, D. M.; & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1994). Inducing change in
values, attitudes, and behaviors: Belief System Theory and the method of
value self-confrontation. Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 153-173.

Guerra, A. L., & Braungart-Rieker, J. M. (1999). Predicting career indecision in
college students: the roles of identity formation and parental relationship
factors. The Career Development Quarterly, 47, 255 - 266.

Hansen, E. J. (1998). Essential demographics of today’s college students.
American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 51(3).

Harper, L. J. (1981). Home economics in higher education: Status and trends
1980. Journal of Home Economics, 73(1), 14-18.

Harper, L. J., & Davis, S. L. (1986). Home economics and higher education,
1968 - 1982: Analysis and trends. Journal of Home Economics, 78(1), 7-
17.

Holland, D. C., & Eisenhart, M. A. (1990). Educated in romance. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational
personalities and work environments (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Horn, M. J. (1981). Home economics: A recitation of definition. Journal of Home
Economics, 73(1), 19-23.

Horn, M.J., & East, M. (1982). Hindsight and foresight: Basis for choice. Journal
of Home Economics, 74(4), 10-17.

lsaacson, L. E., & Brown, D. (1993). Career information, career counseling, and
career development. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Jax, J. A. (2000). A critical interpretation of leadership for the new millennium.
Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 92, 85-88.

188

Jenkins, 0., & Mason, G. (2000). The voices of the future. Joumal of Family and
Consumer Sciences, 92, 57-58.

Jurgens, J. C. (2000). The undecided student: effects of combining levels of
treatment parameters on career certainty, career indecision, and client
satisfaction. The Career Development Quarterly, 48, 237 - 250.

King, P. M. (1978). William Perry’s theory of intellectual and ethical development.
In L. Knefelkamp, C. Widick, & C. A. Parker (Eds), Applying new
developmental findings (pp. 35-50). New Directions for Student Services,
No. 4. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Knefelkamp, L., & Slepitza, R. L. (1976). A cognitive-developmental model of
career development: An adaptation of the Perry scheme. The Counseling
Psychologist, 6, 53-58.

Kohlberg, L. (1975). The cognitive-developmental approach to moral education.
Phi Delta Kappan, 56, 670-677.

Layton, L. (1999, May 17). More people choosing jobs over grad school,
educators say. Washington Post.

Lee, R. M., & Robbins, S. B. (2000). Understanding social connectedness in

college women and men. Joumal of Counseling and Development, 78,
484-491.

Lindholm, B. W., & Touliatos, J. (1995). Personality traits and curricular choices
of undergraduate women in home economics. Psychological Reports, 75,
579 - 586.

Long, B. E., Sowa, C. J., & Niles, S. G. (1995). Differences in student
development reflected by the career decisions of college seniors. Joumal
Of College Student Development, 36, 47-52.

Lorenz, M. K. (1970). A descriptive study of the backgrounds, attitudes, and
values of home economics students at Michigan State University.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East
Lansing.

Luzzo, D. A. (1995). Gender differences in college students’ career maturity and
perceived barriers in career development. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 73(3), 319 — 330.

Luzzo, D. A. (1999). Identifying the career decision-making needs of

nontraditional college students. Joumal of Counseling and Development,
77(2), 135-140.

189

Luzzo, D. A., & Hutcheson, K. G. (1996). Causal attributions and sex differences
associated with perceptions of occupational barriers. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 75(6), 135-140.

Luzzo, D. A., & McWhirter, E. H. (2001). Sex and ethnic differences in the
perception of educational and career-related barriers and levels of c0ping
efficacy. Journal of Counseling and Development, 79(1), 61 -67.

Martin, L. M. (2000). The relationship of college experiences to psychosocial
outcomes in students. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 292 -
300.

Masci, D. (1998, May 22). Careerist students question value of liberal arts
tradition. Washington Times.

McGrath, E. J., 8. Johnson, J. T. (1968). The changing mission of home
economics: A report on home economics in the land—grant colleges and
state universities. Columbia: Teachers College Press.

McGregor, S. L. T. (1996). Embracing values: A home economics imperative.
Canadian Home Economics Joumal, 46(1), 3-7.

Mumme, D. C. (1997). Holland’s theory of vocational personalities and work
environments applied to students majoring in family and consumer
sciences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University,
Lubbock.

O'Brien, K. M., Friedman, S. M., Tipton, L. C., & Linn, S. G. (2000). Attachment,
separation, and women's vocational development: A longitudinal analysis.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 301-315.

Osipow, S. H. (1987). Counseling psychology: Theory, research, and practice in
counseling. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 257-278.

Osipow, S. H. (1995). Career issues through the life span. In W. B. Walsh & S.
H. Osipow (Eds), Handbook of vocational psychology: Theory, research,
and practice. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Parrish, S. E. (1975). Comparison of personal values of home economics and
human ecology students at Michigan State University, 1968-1975.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East
Lansing.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students:
Findings and insights from Monty years of research. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

190

Pascarella, E. T.; Ethington, C. A.; & Smart, J. C. (1988). The influence of
college on humanitarian/civic involvement values. Joumal of Higher
Education, 59, 41 3-437.

Pearson, F., & Bruess, B. (2001). Students” perceptions of factors which impact
their identity and moral development. College Student Affairs Joumal,
20(2), 22 - 27.

Phillips, S. D., & lmhoff, A. R. (1997). Women and career development: a
decade of research. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 31 - 59.

Richards, M. V. (2000). The postmodern perspective on home economics
history. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 92, 81-84.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press.
Rokeach, M. (1979). Understanding human values. New York: The Free Press.

Schlater, J. D., & Sontag, M. S. (1994). Toward the measurement of human
values. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 23, 4-25.

Schultheiss, D. E. P., & Blustein, D. L. (1994). Role of adolescent-parent
relationships in college student development and adjustment. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 41, 248 - 255.

Shim, S., Warrington, P., & Goldsberry, E. (1999). A personal value-based
model of college students’ attitudes and expected choice behavior
regarding retailing careers. Family and Consumer Sciences Research
Journal, 28, 28-51.

Simerly, C. B., Ralston, P. A., Harriman, L., & Taylor, B. (2000). The Scottsdale
Initiative: Positioning the profession for the 21 st century. Joumal of Family
and Consumer Sciences, 92, 75-80.

Stinnett, N., Choplin, J., Goolsby, G., Hindman, N., Winters, S., Kreps, C.,
Lamdin, F., et al. (1971). Perceptions of college students concerning the
home economics profession and major. Journal of Home Economics, 63,
607-610.

Stockton, N., Berry, J., Shepson, J., & Utz, P. (1980). Sex-Role and innovative
major choice among college students. Joumal of Vocational Behavior, 16,
360 - 367.

Stoecker, J. L., & Pascarella, E. T. (1991). Women’s colleges and women’s
career attainments revisited. The Journal of Higher Education, 62, 394 -
406.

191

Stout, B. L., Huber, A. L., Babcock, T. M., Lyson, T. A., LeNoir, V. R., & Adams,
L. (1981). Influential factors on choice of home economics as a major for
black and white women attending land-grant colleges in the Southern
region. Home Economics Research Journal, 9, 211-220.

Strange, C. (1994). Student development: The evolution and status of an
essential idea. Joumal of College Student Development, 3_5(6), 399-412.

Strange, C. C., & Banning, J. H. (2001). Educating by design. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Sullivan, K. R., & Mahalik, J. R. (2000). Increasing career self-efficacy for
women: Evaluating a group intervention. Joumal of Counseling and
Development, 78, 54 - 62.

Super, D. E. (1974). Vocational maturity theory. In D. E. Super (Ed), Measuring
vocational maturity for counseling and evaluation. Washington: National
Vocational Guidance Association.

Super, D. E. (1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career development.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16, 282-298.

Thomas, J., & Smith, G. (1994). Toward an ideal of the person educated in home
economics: An invitation to dialogue. Canadian Home Economics Journal,
44(1), 20-25.

Thrasher, F., & Bloland, P. (1989). Student development studies: A review of
published empirical research, 1973 - 1987. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 67, 547 — 554.

Vaines, E. (1989). On becoming a home economist: Conversations on the
meaning. Home Economics Research Joumal, 1 7, 319-329.

Weber, J. (1993). Exploring the relationship between personal values and moral
reasoning. Human Relations, 46, 435-463.

Widick, 0.; Parker, C. A.; 8. Knefelkamp, L. (1978). Arthur Chickering’s vectors of
development. In L. Knefelkamp, C. Widick, & C. A. Parker (Eds),
Applying new developmental findings (pp. 19-34). New Directions for
Student Services, No. 4. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Winston, R.B., Miller, T.K., and Cooper, D. L. (1999). Student Developmental
Task and Lifestyle Assessment. Athens, GA: Student Development
Associates.

Winston, R.B., Miller, T.K., and Cooper, D. L. (1999). Preliminary technical
manual for the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment.
Athens, GA: Student Development Associates.

192

 

Yankelovich, D. (1972). The changing values on campus: Political and personal
attitudes of today's college students. New York: Washington Square
Press.

Zaccaria, J. S. (1970). Theories of occupational choice and vocational
development. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

193

lllllll ll‘llllll