GlobalVisions

Table or Circles: A Comparison of Two Methods for

Choosing Among Career Alternatives
AdiAmitandItamarGati
Asampleof182youngadultsabouttochoosetheircollegemajorwererandomlyassignedto2guidancemethodsaimedat
facilitatingchoosingamongpromisingcareeralternatives:TableforChoiceandCirclesforChoice.TableforChoicewas
perceivedasmoreeffective,butindividuals'confidenceintheirchoicewashigherintheCirclesforChoicecondition.More
factorsthatservetocompareandevaluatetheoptionswereHstedbypardcipantsintheCirclesforChoicecondition.No
interactionemergedbetweentheparticipant'sdecisionmakingstyleandtheusefulnessofthetwomethods.Bothmethodswere
perceivedasmoreusefulforparticipantswhowerealreadyatthechoicestagethanforthosewhowereonlyattheprescreening
ortheindepthexplorationsstage.
Choosingacareerisoneofthemostimportantdecisionsthatpeoplemakeduringtheirlifetime.Thecareeronepursueshas
significantimplicadonsforone'slifestyle,economicandsocialstatus,andemotionalwelfare(Cati&Tal,2008).Oneofthe
salientdifticultiesindividualsencounterduringthisdecisionmakingprocessislackofknowledgeabouthowtomakecareer
decisions(Gati,Krausz,&Osipow,1996).Decadesofresearchintocareerchoicehasdemonstratedtheeffectivenessofcareer
counselingintervendons(e.g..Brown&RyanKrane,2000;Tinsley,Tinsley,&Rushing,2002;Whiston,Sexton,&Lasoff,
1998).Inthepresentresearch,weproposeandtestanewmethod(CirclesforChoice)forfacilitatingthecomparisonand
evaluadonofcareeropdonsatthechoicestage.Thenewmethodwastestedusinganexperimentaldesignwithrandom
assignment,anditsusefiilnesswasevaluatedwithbothsubjecdveandobjecdvecriteria,whileattendingtoindividualdifferences
inclients'decisionmakingstyleandtheircareerdecisionmakingstage.
AdiAmit,DepartmentofManagementandEconomics,TheOpenUniversityofIsrael,Raanana,Israel;ItamarGati,Department
ofPsychology,TheHebrewUniversityofJerusalem,Jerusalem,Israel.TheauthorsthankTasminAbofoul,
ReumaGadassi,NaomiGoldblum,TamiKenethCohen,NimrodLevin,TuliaLipshitz,MayaPerez,MichalPhillipsBernstein,
RuthNaimShimon,LilachSagiv,RachelSireling,andDanaVertsbergerfortheircommentsonpreviousversionsofthisarticle.
ThisresearchwasconductedbythefirstauthorunderaLadyDavisfellowshipattheSchoolofEducation,TheHebrew
UniversityofJerusalem,andwassupported,inpart,byagrantfromtheLadyDavisFellowshipTrustforthefirstauthorandby
theSamuelandEstherMeltonChairforthesecondauthor.CorrespondenceconcerningthisarticleshouldbeaddressedtoAdiAmit,
DepartmentofManagementandEconomics,TheOpenUniversityofIsrael,1UniversityRoad,Raanana43537,Israel(email:
adiam@openu.ac.il).
2013bytheNationalCareerDevelopmentAssociation.Allrightsreserved.
50TheCareerDevelopmentQuarterlyMarch2013Volume61

Received 09/26/11 Revised 01/10/12 Accepted 01/12/12 DOI: 10.1002/J.2161-0045.2013.00035.x

StagesinCareerDecisionMaking
Makingacareerchoicerequirestheconsiderationandtheanalysisofcomplexinformation.Thereare
manyoccupationalalternativestochoosefrom,andtheinformationabouteachalternativeisimmense.
Dividingthedecisionprocessintostageshelpsreduceanxietyanddecreasethecognitiveeffortrequired
formakingthedecision,whilemaintainingsufficientdecisionaccuracy(Gati&Tal,2008).
GatiandAsher(2001)proposedathreestageframeworkforfacilitatingcareerdecisionmaking:thePIC
model(^rescreening,ndepthexploration,andchoice)ofcareerdevelopment.Thegoalofprescreening

istolocateasmall,manageablesetofpromisingalternatives.Duringindepthexploration,thepromising
alternativesarethoroughlyinvestigatedtoverifythattheyindeedfittheindividualandthattheindividual
fitsthesealternatives.Bytheendoftheindepthexplorationstage,theindividualshouldhaveafairly
comprehensivepictureofeachalternative,includingtheprospectsofactualizingit.Inthechoicestage,
thealternativesontheshortlistarecomparedandevaluatedtofindthebestalternativeortorankorder
themifactualizationisuncertain.Careerclientsnaturallycollectandprocesscareerinformationina
waythatiscompatiblewiththePICstages(Gati&Tikotzki,1989);moreover,followingthethreestep
processrepresentedbythePICmodelfacilitatesbettercareerdecisions(Kibari,1999).
Variousdecisionmakingaidshavebeendevelopedtofacilitatethedecisionmakingprocess.Interest
inventories(e.g.,SelfDirectedSearch[Holland,1997];www.selfdirectedsearch.com)andcareer
guidancesystems(e.g..MakingBetterCareerDecision[Gati,Kleiman,Saka,8cZakai,2003];
mbcd.intocareers.org)canbeusedtofacilitatetheprescreeningstageandhelpidentifytheclient's
vocationalpersonalitytypeandpromisingcompatiblealternatives.Informationaboutoccupational
alternativesiseasilyaccessibletoday(inprintandelectronicform)foruseattheindepthexploration
stage.However,becauselittleresearchhasaddressedthewaysoffacilitatingthechoicestage,thisissueis
thefocusofthepresentstudy.

ChoosingAmongAlternativesattheChoiceStage
Katz(1966)proposedadoptingthemultiattributeutilitytheoryforsystematiccomparisonamongasmall
setofpromisingalternativesatthechoicestage.Onthebasisofacompensatorydecisionmodel,hisdeci
siontableencouragescfientstoexplicateandsummarizetheinformationtheyhavegatheredabouteach
alternative,evaluatetheoverallutilityofeachalternative,andselecttheonewiththehighestexpected
utility.ThevariationofKatz'stablethatweusedispresentedinT"ableAl.Thecompensatorymodel
underlyingKatz'stableisregardedasthenormativemodelfordecisionmaking(VonWinterfeldt&
Edwards,1986).
OnelimitationofKatz's(1966)methodistheuseofnumberstorepresentboththeindividual'ssubjective
judgmentoftherelativeimportanceofthefactorsrelevanttothedecisionandtheassessmentofthefit
betweentheindividual'spreferencesandtherespectivecharac
TheCareerDevelopmentQuarterlyMarch2013Volume6151

teristicsoftheoccupations.AsanalternativetoKatz'stable,whichcanbeconsideredtooquantitative
(Gati,1986),weproposedandtestedanothermethodforcomparingandevaluatingalternativesatthe
choicestage:theCirclesforChoicemethod.CirclesforChoiceencouragesclientstovieweach
occupationalalternativeasawhole,integratingtheirimpressionsandthecharacteristicsofeach
alternativeintoasinglewhole.Usingthismethod,clientsareencouragedtochoosethemostappealing
alternative.

Deri.sionMakingSfyie.s
Individualsprocesscareerrelatedinformationandmakedecisionsdifferently(Gati,Landman,
Davidovitch,AsulinPeretz,&Gadassi,2010;Harren,1979;Phillips&Pazienza,1988).Researchers
haveproposedmodelswithdifferentfociandterminologies,butthereisgeneralagreementthatthereare
atleasttwomaindecisionmakingstyles:rationalandintuitive(e.g.,Harren,1979;Rayner&Riding,
1997;Scott&Bruce,1995).Therationalstyleischaracterizedbytheuseofrulesandsystematic

methodstoanalyzeandprocessinformation;theintuitivestyleischaracterizedbytheuseofassociative,
contextdependentprocesses.
Rationalprocessingisoftenregardedassuperiortointuitiveprocessing(Eikos,Krieshok,&O'Brien,
1998;Scott&Bruce,1995;Stanovich&West,2000).However,Epstein(2000)arguedthatwhilethe
rationalstyleisbettersuitedforcomplextasks,suchasproblemsolving,theintuitivestyleisbettersuited
fordirectingmosteverydaybehavior(e.g.,Epstein,Pacini,DenesRaj,&Heier,1996).Theintuitivestyle
(i.e.,usingaffectivedecisionstrategies)mayalsobemoreeffectiveincertaincomplexdecisions(Mikels,
Maglio,Reed,&Kaplowitz,2011).Eurthermore,accordingtotheMyersBriggsTypeIndicator(Myers,
McCauUey,Quenk,&Hammer,1998)allpersonalitytypesanddecisionmakingstylesareequally
valuableandnosingletypecanbecharacterizedasthebestdecisionmaker.Thus,theadvantagesofone
styleovertheotherarenotclearcut.
Moreover,individualswhomakedecisionsusingastrategycompatiblewiththeirdecisionmakingst}4e
tendtobemoresatisfiedwiththeircareerdecisionandmorecommittedtoit(Zakay&Tsal,1993),
experiencelessregret,andperceivethevalenceoftheirchoiceashighercomparedwithparticipantswho
useanincongruentdecisionstrategy(Betsch&Kunz,2008).Thus,itseemsbeneficialtotailor
interventionstoindividuals'decisionmakingstyle(Tinsleyetal.,2002).

TheCurrentRe.searrh
Inthepresentresearch,wecomparedtheperceivedeffectivenessoftwomethodsforchoosingamonga
fewcareeralternativesduringthechoicestage,thatis,TableforChoiceandCirclesforChoice,and
comparedindividuals'confidenceintheirchoiceafterusingoneofthetwomethods(asshowninthe
Appendix).
TableforChoice.TheTableforChoicemethodisasystematicsixstepprocess(seeTableAl)basedon
Katz(1966):(a)writingtheoccupationalalternativesinthetoprow;(b)hstingfivetoeightcriteria(i.e.,
factors)thatdistinguishthealternativesintheleftmostcolumn;(c)assessing
52TheCareerDevelopmentQuarterlyMarch2013Volume61

therelativeimportanceofthelistedfactorsinthesecondcolumnbyallocating10pointsamongthem;(d)
assessingthecongruencebetweeneachoccupationandtheindividuals'preferences,specifically,rating
theextenttowhicheachoccupationmatchesthepreferencesonthefirstfactorusinga5pointscale
(rangingfrom0=notatallto4=perfectfit).,andthenrepeatingthisprocessforeachoftheother
factors;(e)multiplyingthecongruencelevelofeachfactorbytheimportanceofthatfactorforall
occupations;and(f)computingtheoverallutilityforeachoccupationbyaddinguptheproductsof
importancebycongruence.Attheendoftheprocess,theoccupationthatreceivesthehighestutility
scoreismarked.
CirclesforChoice.Thismethodinvolvesfillingfiveemptycircles(about2.5inchesindiameter),
organizedinaflowerlikestructure(seeFigureAl).Afterwritinganoccupationaltitleinthecenterof
eachcircle,clientsareinstructedtolettheirminddriftandallowtheiraspirationsandemotionstoguide
theminwritingtheirthoughtsandassociationsabouteachoccupationinitsrespectivecircle.Incases
wheresomeassociationsarerelevanttoseveraloccupations,itissuggestedthatoneormorecircles
shouldbeconnected(e.g.,bydrawingalinebetweenthecircles).Attheendoftheprocess,theclientsare

askedtoimaginethemselvesworkingineachoftheoccupations,focusingparticularlyontheassociated
emotions,andfinallytomarkthemostappealingoccupation.
Inthisresearch,wetookthefirststepintestingtheuseflilnessofthetwomethodswhileconsideringtwo
individualdifferencevariables:(a)theindividual'scurrentstageinthecareerdecisionmakingprocess
and(b)hisorherdecisionmakingstyle.Weusedthreecriteriatoevaluatetheusefulnessofthese
methods:subjectivereportsof(a)theindividual'sconfidenceinthechosenalternativeand(b)the
perceivedeffectivenessofthemethodused,aswellas(c)anobjectiveindicatorofthoroughdecision
making:thenumberoffactorsconsideredinthedecisionprocess.Wetestedthefollowingtwo
hypotheses:
Hypothesis1:Individualsatthechoicestagewillbenefitmorefromtheuseofeithermethodthanwill
thosewhoarenotyetatthatstage.
Hypothesis2:TheTableforChoicemethodwillbemoreusefultoindividualswitharationalstyle,
whereastheCirclesforChoicemethodwillbemoreuseniltoindividualswithanintuitivestyle.

Method
Participants and Procedure
AspartofanopendayatalargecomprehensiveIsraeliresearchuniversity,whichaimedtoprovideinformation
aboutthevariousmajorsandencourageyoungpeopletoapplytotheuniversity,182visitorsagreedtoparticipatein
acareerexercisewithindividualizedfeedback.Themeanageoftheseparticipantswas21.84years{SD=1.77);
64%werewomen.Typicaluniversityapplicantshavehad12yearsofschoolingandhavecompleted2to4yearsof
mandatorymilitaryservice.Theopendaysareheldinspring,announcingthebeginningofregistrationforthenext
academicyear.
TheCareerDevelopmentQuarterlyMarch2013Volume6153

Theparticipantswereaskedto(a)indicatetheirstageinthecareerdecisionmakingprocess,(b)listthree
tofivemajorsoroccupationstheywerecurrentlyconsidering,and(c)filloutabriefquestionnaireabout
theirdecisionmakingstyle;next,theywererandomlyassignedtotheGircIesforGhoiceorTablefor
Ghoiceconditions,afterwhichtheyfilledoutthe(d)confidenceinone'schoiceand(e)perceivedef
fectivenessmeasures.Fillingoutthebooklettook20to30minutes.Threeweekslater,theparticipants
receivedanemailmessagewithpersonalizedfeedbackregardingtheirstageintheirdecisionmaking
process(includingrecommendednirthersteps).
Instruments

Decisionstage.Todeterminetheparticipant'sdecisionstage,weusedaselfreportmeasuretheRange
ofGonsideredAlternatives(Gatietal.,2003;Saka,Gati,&Kelly,2008).Participantswereaskedto
chooseonestatementoutofsixthatbestdescribedtheirdecisionstatus.Participantsalreadyfocusingona
specificoccupation("Iknowwhichoccupation
Iaminterestedin,butIwouldliketofeelsureofmychoice,""IamalreadysureoftheoccupationIwill
choose,"or"Iamconsideringaspecificoccupation,butwouldliketoexploreotheroptionsbeforeImake
mydecision")wereclassifiedasbeingatthechoicestage(w=68);thoseconsideringseveraloptions("I
amdeliberatingamongasmallnumberofspecificoccupations")wereclassifiedasbeingattheindepth

explorationstage(w=58);andthosewhoreportedthattheyonlyhadageneralidea,atbest("Idonot
evenhaveageneraldirection"or"Ihaveonlyageneraldirection"),wereclassifiedasbeingatthe
prescreeningstage{n=55).Oneparticipantskippedthisquestion.
Decisionmakingstyle.Toassessdecisionmakingstyle,weusedtheRationalandtheIntuitivesubscales
oftheGeneralDecisionMakingScale(Scott&Bruce,1995),whichisanexpandedversionofHarren's
(1979)typology.Fiveitemsmeasuredtherationalstyle(e.g.,"Takedecisionsinalogicalandsystematic
way"),andfiveitemsmeasuredtheintuitivestyle(e.g.,"Whenmakingdecisions,Irelyuponmy
instincts");theitemswererandomlyordered.Theparticipantsratedtheextenttowhicheachstatement
describedthemona5pointLikerttypescale,rangingfrom1{stronglydisagree)to5{stronglyagree).
TheRationalscorewascomputedbyaveragingthefiveitems(a=.69),andtheIntuitivescorewas
computedbyaveragingthefouritemsthatyieldedthehighestGronbach'salphainternalconsistency
reliability(a=.81).Thetwosubscaleswereslightlynegativelycorrelated{r=.26,p<.01),as
inpreviousresearch(e.g.,Thunholm,2004).Weusedamediansplittoclassifyindividualsintofour
groupsaccordingtotheirdecisionmakingstyle:high(4.005.00)orlow(2.403.80)ontheRational
subscale,andhigh(3.505.00)orlow(1.503.25)ontheIntuitivesubscale.
Dependent Variables
Confidenceinone'schosenoccupation.Theparticipants'confidenceintheirchosenoccupationwasassessedbythemeanratings
offouritems(e.g.,"Ibelievethatthisisthemostsuitableoccupationforme").Theresponsescalerangedfrom1{notatall)to7
{verymuch).TheGronbach'salphainternalconsistencyreliabilitywas.75.
54TheCareerDevelopmentQuarterlyMarch2013Volume61

Perceivedeffectiveness.Theparticipants'perceptionoftheeffecdvenessofthedecisionguidancemethod
wasmeasuredbythemeanratingsoffouritems(e.g.,"Towhatextentdidtheguidanceyoureceivedhelp
youprogressinyourcareerdecisionmaking?").Theresponsescalerangedfrom1{notatall)to7{very
much).TheCronbach'salphainternalconsistencyrefiabilitywas.78.
Numberofelicitedcareerrelatedfactors.Factorsaredefinedasanyrelevantcriteriaorconsideradonsa

deliberadngindividualtakesintoaccountwhencomparingoccupadonalalternadvestomakeacareer
decision(Gad,1986;Pryor,1982).Thenumberoffactorsconsideredinthedecisionprocesscanbe
regardedasanindicatorofthoroughexploration.Tworesearchassistants(thejudges),blindtothestudy's
goal,independentlycountedthenumberoffactorsthepardcipantslistedasrelevantfortheirchoice.The
agreementamongthetwojudgeswasquitehigh{r=.82,p<.01),soweusedthemeanofdietwojudges'
ratings.Thenumberoffactorsrangedfrom1to18.5,withameanof5.17(5D=2.25).
Preliminary Analyses

Theequivalenceofthetwoguidanceconditions.Asexpected,participantsinthetwoguidanceconditions,
towhichtheyhadbeenrandomlyassigned,didnotdifferintheirage,i(179)=0.70,f=.482;gender,
yj{\,N=181)=0.84,p=.439;rationalandintuitivedecisionmakingstyles,i(180)=0.17,p=.967,and
i(180)=0.04,p=.865,respectively;decisionmakingstage,X^(5,N=181)=0.81,^=.809;orthe
number
ofalternativestheywereconsidering,i(180)=0.02,p=.983.Results

The Effects of the Guidance Conditions and Decision Stage

Toinvestigatetheeffectsofthetwoguidancemethodsatthethreedecisionmakingstages,weconducted
amultivariateanalysisofvariancewithguidancecondition(TableforChoiceorCirclesforChoice)
anddecisionstage(prescreening,indepthexploration,andchoice)astheindependentvariablesand
confidenceinone'schosenoccupadon,perceivedeffectiveness,andnumberoffactorslistedasthe
dependentvariables.Thefindingsindicatedthatbothguidancecondidonanddecisionstagehada
significanceeffect,Wilks'slambda=.85and.87,^"(3,
165)=9.61and^(6,330)=4.12,respectively,both^<.001.However,nointeractionbetweenthetwo
factorsemerged,Wilks'slambda=.99,F{6,330)=0.22,ns.Theresultsofsubsequenttwowayanalyses
ofvariancearepresentedseparatelyforeachofthethreedependentvariables.
Confidenceinone'schosenoccupation.Table1presentsthemeansandstandarddeviationsofpardcipants'
confidenceintheirchosenoccupationusingthetwochoicemethods,separatelyaccordingtotheparticipants'
decisionstage.TheparticipantsintheCirclesforChoiceconditionreportedgreaterconfidenceintheirchosen
occupationthanthoseintheTableforChoicecondition(M=3.73andM=3.47,respectively),^(1,168)=5.26,p
=.023,r)^=.03.Theparticipants'confidenceintheirchosenoccupationwassignificantlydifferentatthethree
decisionstages,F{2,168)=11.66,^<.0005,Ti^^.12.Participantsatthechoicestagereportedthegreatest
confidence(M=3.88),thoseattheprescreening
TheCareerDevelopmentQuarterlyMarch2013Volume6155
Dependent Variable and Decision Stage
Confidence in one's chosen occupation
Prescreening (f7= 51) In-depth exploration
(n = 57) Choice (n = 66) Across stages
Perceived effectiveness Prescreening (n = 53) In-depth exploration
{n = 58) Choice (n = 65) Across stages
Number of listed factors Prescreening (n = 55) In-depth exploration
(n = 58) Choice (n = 68) Across stages

Note,n=176.
(n = MSD
M SD
332 0.62
3.54 0.57 3.88 0.59 3.60 0.63
2.55 0.77

2.64 0.66 2.78 0.77 2.67 0.73

5.18 2.26
5.40 1.86 4.99 2.57 5.18 2.26

TABLE 1
Means and Standard Deviations of Perceived Effectiveness for the Two Guidance Conditions by Decision
Stage
Table-for-Choice (n =:85)
M SD
Circies-for- Across Choice Guidance
3.23 0.58 3.43 0.65 3.46 0.41 3.61 0.69
3.72 0.59 3.99 0.59 3.47 0.56 3.73 0.67
2.69 0.79 2.40 0.73
2.79 0.59 2.48 0.69 2.85 0.70 2.73 0.82 2.78 0.69 2.56 0.76
3.38 1.49 6.14 2.65
2.74 1.21 6.05 2.16 4.43 1.26 5.41 3.17 4.52 1.32 5.81 2.74

Stagereportedtheleastconfidence(M=3.32),andthoseattheindepthexplorationstagewerein
between{M=3.54).Nointeractionemergedbetweenthetwofactors,F{2,168)=0.15,p=.862.
Perceivedeffectiveness.Table1presentsthemeansandstandarddeviationsoftheperceivedeffectiveness
ofthetwoguidancemethods,separatelyaccordingtotheparticipants'decisionstage.Overall,participants
perceived
theTableforChoiceasmoreeffectivethantheCirclesforChoice{M=2.78andAi=2.56,
respectively),f(l,170)=4.62,^=.033,ri^=.03.Participantsinthechoicestageoverallexpressedthe
highestperceivedeffectiveness(M=2.78),thoseattheprescreeningstagereportedthelowestperceived
effectiveness{M=2.55),withthoseattheindepthexplorationstagefallinginbetween(Ai=2.64).
Althoughthispatterniscompatiblewithourhypothesis,thedifferencesamongthegroupswere
notstatisticallysignificant,f(2,170)=1.73,p=.18.Nointeractionemergedbetweenthetwofactors,
F{2,170)=0.33,^=.718.
Numberoffactorslisted.Table1presentsthemeansandstandarddeviationsofthenumberoflisted
factorsforthetwomethods,separatelyforthethreedecisionstages.Participantsoverallreported
significantiymorefactorsintheCirclesforChoicethanintheTableofChoicemethod{M=5.81andM
=4.52,respectively),^(1,175)=17.05,^<.0005,r|^=.09.Nodifferencesemergedinthenumberof

listedfactorsinthethreedecisionstages,i(2,175)=0.80,p=.453.Nointeractionemergedbetweenthe
guidancemethodandthedecisionstage,F{2,175)=0.48,^=.621.
56TheCareerDevelopmentQuarterlyMarch2013Volume61
:91) Conditions

The Effects of the Guidance Conditions and the Client's Decision-Making Style

Totestthehypothesisthattheusefulnessofthetwomethodsdependsontheindividuals'decisionmaking
style,weconductedamultivariateanalysisofvariancewithguidancecondition(TableforChoiceor
CirclesforChoice),rationaldecisionmakingstyle(highorlow),andintuitivedecisionmakingstyle
(highorlow)asthethreeindependentvariablesandconfidenceinone'schosenoccupation,perceived
effectiveness,andnumberoffactorslistedasthethreedependentvariables.Thefindingsindicatedthat
bothguidanceconditionandrationaldecisionmakingstylehadasignificanteffect,Wilks'slambda=.85
and.94,i='(3,163)=9.64and3.33,^<.001and^=.021,respectively;theintuitivedecisionmakingstyle
didnotyieldasignificanteffect,Wilks'slambda=1.00,F(3,163)=0.17,ns.Finally,nointeractions
emerged,Wilks'slambda..99,F{3,163)=0.48,0.57,0.43,0.29,ns,respectively,forthefour
interactions.Theresultsofsubsequentthreewayanalysesofvariancearepresentedseparatelyforeachof
thethreedependentvariables.
Confidenceinone'schosenoccupation.Participantswithahighrationaldecisionmalcingstyleexpressed
greaterconfidenceintheirchosenoccupationcomparedwiththosewithalowrationaldecisionmaking
style
{M=3.73andM=3.46,respectively),F{1,166)=7.63,p=.006,rj^
=.04.However,therewasnodifferenceinconfidenceinone'schosenoccupationbetweenparticipants
withhighandlowintuitivedecisionmakingstyles,i='(l,166)=0.05,p=.831.Furthermore,no
statisticallysignificantinteractionsemerged.Thus,thehypothesisthatconfidenceinone'schoicedepends
onthecongruencebetweentheparticipant'sdecisionmakingstyleandthemethodusedtocompareand
evaluatethealternativeswasnotsupported.
Perceivedeffectiveness.Theonlydifferencethatemergedwastheonereportedearlierparticipants
perceivedtheTableforChoicemethodasmoreeffectivethantheCirclesforChoicemethod,F(l,168)=
4.39,p=.038,ri^=03.Perceivedeffectivenessdidnotdifferamongindividualswithdifferentdecision
makingstyles,andnostatisticallysignificantinteractionsemerged.Thus,thehypotliesisthatthe
perceivedeffectivenessdependsonthecongruencebetweentheparticipant'sdecisionmakingstyleand
themethodusedtocompareandevaluatediealternativeswasnotsupported.
Numberoffactorslisted.TheparticipantslistedsignificantlymorefactorsintheCirclesforChoicethan
theTableforChoicecondition(M=5.81andM=4.51,respectively),P(l,174)=15.01,/7<.0005,ri^=.
08.Noothereffectswerestatisticallysignificant.Thus,thehypothesisthatthenumberofelicitedfactors
dependsonthecongruencebetweentheparticipant'sdecisionmakingstyleandthemethodusedto
compareandevaluatethealternativeswasnotsupported.

Discussion

Thepresentstudycomparedtheusefiilnessoftwomethodsdesignedtofacilitatechoosingamongafewcareer
alternativesatthechoicestageforyoungadultsgenuinelydehberatingabouttheirftiturecareer:TableforChoice
andCirclesforChoice.Thisstudyisinnovativeinseveralways.First,weproposedandtestedanewmethodfor
facilitatingthe
TheCareerDevelopmentQuarterlyMarch2013Volume6157

comparisonandevaluationofcareeroptionsatthechoicestage.Second,weusedanexperimental
designtoevaluateandcomparethetwomethodswithrandomassignmentofparticipantstothetwo
guidanceconditions.Third,multiplecriteriaofusefulnesswereused,consideringbothsubjectivereports
andanobjectiveindicatorofeffectivedecisionmaking.Finally,wetestedtheusefulnessofthetwo
methodsasafunctionofindividualdifferencesindecisionstageanddecisionmakingstyle.
Table-for-Choice Versus Circles-for-Choice
Wedidnotpredictthatonemethodwouldbesuperiortotheother;thefindings,however,providesomeinterestinginsightson
thedifferencebetweenthetwo.AlthoughparticipantsperceivedtheTableforChoiceasslightiymoreeffective(effectsizeof
3%)thantheCirclesforChoicemethod,theywereslightlymoreconfidentintheirchosenoccupationalalternative(effectsizeof
3%)andproduced29%morecareerrelatedfactorsintheCirclesforChoicemethod(effectsizeof8%).Thus,althoughthe
subjectiveindicatorsgivenoadvantagetoonemethodovertheother,theCirclesforChoicemethodemergedasmoderately
betterwhenanobjectivemeasureofusefulnessthenumberoffactorslistedwasconsidered.
ThegreaterperceivedeffectivenessoftheTableforChoicemethodmaybeattributedtothemorestructured,stepbystepguided
processcomparedwiththemoreassociative,lessstructuredprocessusedinCirclesforChoice.Theparticipants'greater
confidenceintheirdecisionwhenusingtheCirclesforChoicemethodmaybeattributabletoitsmoreintuitiveappealand
perhapstotheirlesserconfidenceinthenumericalratingsthatarethebasisforthecomputationsintheTableforChoicemethod.
Theparticipants'greaterconfidenceintheirchoicewhenusingtheCirclesforChoicemethodcannot,however,beaccounted
forbythegreaternumberoffactorsconsideredintheCirclesforChoicecondition,becausethecorrelationbetweenconfidence
andnumberoffactorslistedwasnil(r=.07).Futurestudiesshouldinvestigatewhetherthisdifferencemaybeduetothe
differentamountsofprocessingandcognitiveeffortrequiredforeachtask,withtheTableforChoicemethodencouragingthe
evaluationofallalternativesalongonefactoratatime,whereastheCirclesforChoicemethodencouragestheseparate,global
evaluationofeachalternativeacrossallfactors.
Decisionmakingstajfe.Individualsweremoreapttorelyontheirknowledge,themoreadvancedtheywereinthedecision
process.Aswashypothesized(inHypothesis1),inboththeTableforChoiceandtheCirclesforChoiceconditions,participants
whowereatamoreadvanceddecisionstage(i.e.,thechoicestage)reportedgreaterconfidenceintheirchoiceofoccupation
(effectsizeof12%).Thispatterniscompatiblewiththefindingsthatlackofknowledgeabouthowtomakecareerdecisionsis
amongthemoresalientdifficultiesindividualsface(Gati&Amir,2010;Gatietal.,1996).Itisinterestingthatthenumberof
factorslisteddidnotdependonthedecisionmakingstage,suggestingthatclientswereequallyawareofrelevantoccupational
informationatallstagesbutweremorecapableofusingthisinformationatamoreadvanceddecisionstage.
Insum,althoughthedifferencesbetweenthemethodswerenotdramaticintermsoftheparticipants'subjectiveevaluations
(confidenceinchoice
58TheCareerDevelopmentQuarterlyMarch2013Volume61

orperceivedeffectiveness),therewerenoticeabledifferencesamongtheseevaluationsdependingonthe
decisionmakingstageatwhichtheclientswere.Specifically,participantsinthechoicestagereportedthe
greatesteffectivenessandconfidence,whereasthoseintheprescreeningstagereportedtheleast.Thus,
apparentlyeithermethodcanhelpthoseinthechoicestagecomparethealternativestheyareconsidering
andchoosethebestone,withtheGirclesforGhoiceapparentlyencouragingadeeperdecisionmaking
processasreflectedinthegreaternumberoffactorsconsidered.

Decisionmakingstyle.ThefindingsdidnotsupportourhypothesisthattheGirclesforGhoicemethod
wouldbeadvantageousforindividualswithanintuitivestyle.Listingoccupationalcharacteristics
explicitlymayhavebeenperceivedascounterintuitivebyintuitiveclients.Moreover,occupational
characteristicscanbewrittenincirclesusingasystematic,rationalprocess.Nonetheless,theresultsare
compatiblewithpreviousresearch(Singh&Greenhaus,2004)indicatingthatrationalindividualsare
moreconfidentintheiroccupationalchoice.Futureresearchmayusealternativemeasuresforassessing
thewayindividualstendtomaketheircareerdecisions,suchastheGareerDecisionMakingProfile(Gati
etal.,2010;Gati&Levin,2012),whichwasfoundtobebetterthantheGeneralDecisionMakingScale
inpredictingcareerdecisionstatus(Gati,Gadassi,&MashiahGohen,2012).
Limitations
Beforewediscusstheimplicationsofthepresentstudy,itslimitationshavetobeacknowledged.First,the
participantswereallpotentialapplicantstoasingleuniversity,sothestudyhastobereplicatedwith
potentialapplicantstootherhighereducationalinstitutionsandpai'ticipantsconsideringoccupationsthat
donotrequirehighereducation.Furthermore,itwascarriedoutinIsrael,whereapplicantshaveto
declaretheirmajorwhentheyapplytotheuniversityandhavenooptionofdelayingituntiltheir
sophomoreyear.Third,theTableforGhoicemethodinvolvesmanualcomputations,whichcanbe(and
indeedare)carriedoutautomaticallyincomputerizedsystems(e.g.,WTArw.cddq.org/choice).Moreover,
therelativeimportanceofthelistedfactorsintheTableforGhoicemethodwaselicitedbyallocating10
pointsamongthefactors,limitingtheparticipants'opportunitytoexpressfinedifferencesinthisregard.
Futurestudiesshouldattempttoovercomeorminimizetheselimitations.Finally,forpracticalreasons,
thenumberofitemsmeasuringeachdependentvariable(i.e.,perceivedeffectivenessandconfidencein
one'schoice)wassmall,resultinginmoderatereliabilities,possiblydeflatingtheeffectsandlimitingour
abilitytoconfirmourhypothesis.
Counseling Implications
Thepresentstudyindicatestheusefulnessofbothguidancemethodsforthoseatthechoicestage.Apparently,
clientsappreciatedbeingguidedthroughthecomparisonandevaluationofthefewoptionsontheirshortlist.The
GirclesforGhoicemethodencouragesclientstoformanintegrativeviewofeachoccupationalalternative,while
consideringthecomplexityofcareerrelatedfactors.Itpromotestheexplicitconsiderationofmanyfactors,leading
theparticipantstohavemoreconfidenceinthe
TheCareerDevelopmentQuarterlyMarch2013Volume6159

selectedopdonafterusingitthanwhentheyusedtheTableforChoicemethod.Itisinteresting,however,
thattheTableforChoicemethodwasperceivedasmoreeffective.Thismayimplythatclientsperceive
systematic,structured,stepwiseguidanceintheirdecisionsashelpfulinmakingtheirchoice.Future
researchmaytesttheactualbenefitofthetwomethodsinadvancingclientstowardmakingtheirdecision
(e.g.,choosingamajor).Meanwhile,counselorscanadoptoneofthetwomethodsoruseonethey
designedandtestedthemselvestohelpclientsatthechoicestage.
Thelackofinteractionbetweenperceivedeffectiveness,confidenceinone'sdecision,andthenumberof
factorsconsidered,ontheonehand,andtheclients'decisionmakingstyle,ontheother,ispuzzling.It
mayimplythatthedifferencebetweenclientswithrationalandintuitivestylesisgreateratearlier
decisionstagesorthatthetaskintheCirclesforChoicemethodmayalsobeperformedusingarational
process.Thefactthatclientswitharationalstylereportedgreaterconfidenceintheirdecisionimpliesthat

decisionmakingstyledoesmatter,andthustheeffectsofindividuals'decisionmakingstyleshouldbe
nirtherinvestigated.AssessingthewayclientsmaketheircareerdecisionsusingtheCareerDecision
MakingProfilequestionnaire(Gatietal.,2010;Ginevra,Nota,Soresi,&Gati,2012)mayprovide
counselorswithadditionalrelevantinformation,possiblyenablingthemtobettertailortheircareer
intervcndontothewaytheclienttendstomakecareerdecisions.

References
Betsch,C,&Kunz,J.J.(2008).Individualstrategypreferencesanddecisionalfit.JournalofBehavioralDecisionMaking,21,
532555.doi:10.1002/bdm.600
Bikos,L.H.,Krieshok,T.S.,&O'Brien,K.M.(1998).EvaluatingthepsychometricpropertiesoftheMissouriOccupational
CardSort.JournalofVocationalBehavior,52,135155.doi:10.1006/jvbe.1996.1572
Brown,S.D.,&RyanKrane,N.E.(2000).Four(orfive)sessionsandacloudofdust:
Oldassumptionsandnewobservationsaboutcareercounseling.InS.D.Brown&
R.W.Lent(Eds.),Handbookofcounselingpsychology(3rded.,pp.740766).NewYork,NY:Wiley.
Epstein,S.(2000).Therationalitydebatefromtheperspectiveofcognitiveexperientialselftheory.BehavioralandBrain
Sciences,23,671.
Epstein,S.,Pacini,R.,DenesRaj,V.,&Heier,H.(1996).Individualdifferencesinintuitiveexperientialandanalyticalrational
thinkingstyles.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,71,390405.doi:10.1037/00223514.71.2.390
Gati,I.(1986).Makingcareerdecisions:Asequentialeliminationapproach.JournalofCounselingPsychology,33,408417.
doi:10.1037/00220167.33.4.408
Gati,I.,&Amir,T.(2010).Applyingasystematicproceduretolocatecareerdecisionmakingdifficulties.TheCareer
DevelopmentQuarterly,76,301320.
Gad,I.,&Asher,I.(2001).ThePICmodelforcareerdecisionmaking:Prescreening,indepthexploration,andchoice.InF.T.
Leong&A.Barak(Eds.),Contemporarymodelsinvocationalpsychology(pp.754).Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.
Gad,I.,Gadassi,R,&MashiahCohen,R.(2012).Careerdecisionmakingprofilesvs.careerdecisionmakingstyles:Convergent
andincrementalvalidity.JournalofVocationalBehavior,81,216.
Gad,I.,Kleiman,T.,Saka,N.,&Zakai,A.(2003).PerceivedbenefitsofusinganInternetbasedinteracdvecareerplanning
system.JournalofVocationalBehavior,62,272286.doi:10.1016/S00018791(02)000490
60TheCareerDevelopmentQuarterlyMarch2013Volume61
Gati,I.,Krausz,M.,&Osipow,S.H.(1996).Ataxonomyofdifficultiesincareerdecisionmskin^.JournalofCounseling
Psychology,43,510526.doi:10.1037/00220167.43.4.510
Gati,I.,Landman,S.,Davidovitch,S.,AsulinPeretz,L.,&Gadassi,R.(2010).Fromcareerdecisionmakingstylestocareer
decisionmakingprofiles:Amultidimensionalupproich.JournalofVocationalBehavior,76,277291.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2009.11.001
Gati,I.,&Levin,N.(2012).Thestabilityandstructureofcareerdecisionmakingprofiles:A1yearfollowup.Journalof
CareerAssessment,20,390403.
Gati,I.,&Tal,S.(2008).Decisionmakingmodelsandcareerguidance.InJ.Athanasou&R.VanEsbroeck(Eds.),
Internationalhandbookofcareerguidance(pp.157185).Berlin,Germany:Springer.

Gad,I.,&Tikotzki,Y.(1989).Strategiesforcollectionandprocessingofoccupationalinformationinmakingcareerdecisions.
JournalofCounselingPsychology,36,430^39.doi:10.1037/00220167.36.4.430.
Ginevra,M.C,Nota,L.,Soresi,S.,&Gati,I.(2012).GareerdecisionmakingprofilesofItalianadolescents.JournalofCareer
Assessment,20,375389.
Harren,V.A.(1979).Amodelofcareerdecisionmakingforcollegestudents.JournalofVocationalBehavior,14,119133.
doi:10.1016/00018791(79)900654
Holland,J.L.(1997).Makingvocationalchoices:Atheoryofvocationalpersonalitiesandworkenvironments.Odessa,FL:
PsychologicalAssessmentResources.
Katz,M.(1966).Amodelofguidanceforcareerdecisionmaking.TheVocationalGuidanceQuarterly,15,210.
Kibari,L.(1999).Careerdecisionmakingprocessesandtheireffectsonthequalityoftheiroutcomes[InHebrew].Unpublished
researchreport.SchoolofEducation,HebrewUniversityofJerusalem,Jerusalem,Israel.
Mikels,J.A.,Maglio,S.J.,Reed,A.E.,&Kaplowitz,L.J.(2011).ShouldIgowithmygut?Investigatingthebenefitsof
emotionfocuseddecisionmaking.Emotion,11,743753.doi:10.1037/a0023986
Myers,LB.,McGaulley,M.H.,Quenk,N.L.,&Hammer,A.L.(1998).MBTImanual:Aguidetothedevelopmentanduseofthe
MyersBriggsTypeIndicator(3rded.).PaloAlto,CA:ConsultingPsychologistsPress.
Phillips,S.D.,&Pazienza,N.J.(1988).Historyandtheoryoftheassessmentofcareerdevelopmentanddecisionmaking.InW.
B.Walsh&S.H.Osipow(Eds.),Careerdecisionmaking{pp.131).Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Pryor,R.G.L.(1982).Values,preferences,needs,workethicsandorientationtowork:Towardaconceptualandempirical
integration.JournalofVocationalBehavior,20,4052.doi:10.1016/00018791(82)900628
Rayner,S.,&Riding,R.(1997).Towardsacategorizationofcognitivestylesandlearningstyles.EducationalPsychology,17,5
27.doi:10.1080/0144341970170101
Saka,N.,Gad,I.,&Kelly,K.R.(2008).Emodonalandpersonalityrelatedaspectsofcareerdecisionmakingdifficuldes.
JournatofCareerAssessment,16,403424.doi:10.1177/1069072708318900
Scott,S.G.,&Bruce,R.A.(1995).Decisionmakingstyle:Thedevelopmentandassessmentofanewmeasure.Educational
andPsychologicalMeasurement,55,818831.doi:10.1177/0013164495055005017
Singh,R.,&Greenhaus,J.H.(2004).Thereladonbetweencareerdecisionmakingstrategiesandpersonjobfit:Astudyofjob
changers.JournalofVocationalBehavior,64,198221.doi:10.1016/S00018791(03)000344
Stanovich,K.E.,&West,R.F.(2000).Individualdifferencesinreasoning:Implicadonsfortherationalitydebate.Behavioral
andBrainSciences,23,645665.
Thunholm,P.(2004).Decisionmakingstyle:Habit,styleorboth?PersonalityandIndividualDifferences,36,931944.
doi:10.1016/S01918869(03)001624
Tinsley,H.E.A.,Tinsley,D.J.,&Rushing,J.(2002).Psychologicaltype,decisionmakingstyle,andreacdonstostructured
careerinterventions.JournalofCareerAssessment,10,258280.doi:10.1177/1069072702010002008
TheCareerDevelopmentQuarterlyMarch2013Volume61
61

VonWinterfeldt,D.,&Edwards,W.(1986).Decisionanalysisandbehaviouralresearch.Cambridge,UnitedKingdom:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Whiston,S.C,Sexton,T.L.,&Lasoff,D.L.(1998).Careerinterventionoutcome:AreplicationandextensionofOliverand
Spokane.JournalofCounselingPsychology,45,150165.doi:10.1037/00220167.45.2.150
Zakay,D.,&Tsal,Y.(1993).Theimpactofusingforceddecisionmakingstrategiesonpostdecisionalconfidence.Journalof
BehavioralDecisionMaking,6,5368.doi:10.1002/bdm.3960060104
Factor
Interesting Challenging Practical
Importance
32
Fit
profession 1 Possibility of
combining work
andstudy 1 Workabroad 2 Nonsecretarial

APPENDIX
TABLE A1
Table-for-Choice of Participant 57
International Relations
Politicai Science
Law
555533
444433 5 10 5 10 4 8
Fit Utility 4 12 3 9 2 6
Fit Utility
5 10 4 8 4 8
work 1333311
Note. Importance = 10 points allocated among the listed factors reflecting their relative