Article

Journal of Career Development

2016, Vol. 43(6) 512-525
ª Curators of the University
Examining the Career Decision of Missouri 2016
Reprints and permission:
Self-Efficacy and Career Maturity sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0894845316633780

of Community College jcd.sagepub.com

and First-Generation Students

Alicia J. Harlow1 and Sharon L. Bowman2

Abstract
This study examined the career decision self-efficacy (CDSE) and career maturity of 268 first-
generation baccalaureate and community college student participants. Three independent variables
were analyzed, including generational status (first generation and nonfirst generation), college type
(baccalaureate, community college), and socioeconomic status (SES; low, medium, and high). The
analysis indicated a significant interaction effect for generation by college type, with both first-
generation and nonfirst-generation baccalaureate students reporting lower mean scores than com-
munity college students. This analysis also revealed an interaction effect for generation by SES, with
first-generation students from high-SES backgrounds reporting the lowest levels of CDSE. A separate
analysis using career maturity as the dependent variable indicated a main effect for generation, with
first-generation students reporting a lower level of career maturity than nonfirst-generation students.
The analysis also revealed a robust main effect for college type, with community college students
reporting higher levels of career maturity than baccalaureate students.

Keywords
career, community college, first-generation students

While a fair amount of research (e.g., Lopez & Ann-Yi, 2006; Luzzo, 1995; Luzzo & Ward, 1995;
Quimby & O’Brien, 2004) has been conducted on university campuses to identify the correlates of
career decision self-efficacy (CDSE) and career maturity, there has been little research regarding these
concepts in relation to students attending community colleges (2-year higher educational public insti-
tutions). In addition, first-generation college students, or those who represent the first in their family to
attend college, present unique needs that those with a family history of college attendance do not
always encounter (Dennis, Phinney, & Chuateco, 2005; Jehangir, 2010; Owens, Lacey, Rawls, &
Holbert-Quince, 2010). The literature available on these two groups is nearly identical in tone with

1
Psychology Department, The Sage Colleges, Troy, NY, USA
2
Department of Counseling Psychology and Guidance Services, Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA

Corresponding Author:
Alicia J. Harlow, Psychology Department, The Sage Colleges, 65 First St., Troy, NY 12180, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Harlow and Bowman 513

regard to lack of academic preparation, lack of social support, and perceived barriers to success
(Davies & Casey, 1999; Jehangir, 2010; Mehta, Newbold, & O’Rourke, 2011). While these two groups
may experience similar career development and decision-making challenges, it is also possible that
differences between them have yet to be measured. The available literature on these groups suggests
that they share challenges related to career development such as perceived barriers to success (Owens
et al., 2010) and lack of career information and skills (Luzzo, 1993). In addition, statistics on degree
completion rates of both community college and first-generation students indicate that they are more
likely to drop out of college (Goldrick-Rab, 2010; Mehta et al., 2011), suggesting academic challenges
that may also interfere with career goals.
Although a limited number of studies on both CDSE (i.e., Peterson, 1993) and career maturity (i.e.,
Ware, 2009) have found a positive relationship with continued persistence in degree completion, addi-
tional research specifically focusing on both community college and first-generation students is
needed. Furthermore, community college (Davies & Casey, 1999) and first-generation students (Mehta
et al., 2011) have reported low overall levels of social support, which has been shown to have a positive
relationship with both CDSE (Quimby & O’Brien, 2004; Thompson & Subich, 2006) and career matu-
rity (Schmidt & Nilsson, 2006).
In addition to social support, socioeconomic status (SES) may have an impact on both CDSE (Thomp-
son & Subich, 2006) and career maturity (Kim & Oh, 2013). While multiple studies have emphasized the
influence of SES on career decisions in general (i.e., Blustein et al., 2002; Brown, 2000), fewer studies
have specifically examined the relationship between SES and CDSE or career maturity. More research is
needed in order to better understand the overall impact of SES on CDSE and career maturity, particularly
in relation to socioeconomically diverse community college and first-generation students.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify the potential differences between first-generation
community college students, nonfirst-generation community college students, first-generation bacca-
laureate students, and nonfirst-generation baccalaureate students on two career variables: CDSE and
career maturity. In addition, SES was explored in order to determine how these variables impact the
aforementioned career constructs.

Community College Students

According to national survey statistics, community college students tended to be less prepared acade-
mically than those who attended baccalaureate institutions. The number of students taking remedial
courses at some point during their college education was more than twice that of students who took
similar courses at baccalaureate institutions (Bailey, Jenkins, & Leinbach, 2005). The National Center
for Education Statistics (NCES) reported that, of the students who entered community college with the
intent of transferring to a 4-year institution and graduating with a bachelor’s degree, only about
20–25% ever achieved this goal (Hoachlander, Sikora, Horn, & Carroll, 2003). Whether or not this
is simply due to a change in career plans or to an inability to meet academic and career goals remains
unclear. In addition, many community college students reported working full-time while attending
classes part-time and indicated a lack of social support for balancing school and life responsibilities
(Davies & Casey, 1999; Mutter, 1992).
While very little recent research has been conducted on the career goals and concerns of community
college students, the few studies available shed light on the issues many of these students encounter. At
least one study suggested that, regardless of age, community college students reported low levels of
career maturity, career skills, and CDSE (Luzzo, 1993). This could, however, be due to the fact that
community college students did not have the information necessary to make confident career deci-
sions. In two additional studies, community college students have also reported a high need for career
and workplace knowledge but did not feel as though they were receiving enough information from
counselors (Olson & Matkin, 1992; Simon & Tovar, 2004).
514 Journal of Career Development 43(6)

None of the current studies on the career concerns of community college students have directly
compared their needs to those of baccalaureate students. While the career-related differences between
these two groups of students remain unclear, low completion rates of community college students in
comparison to baccalaureate students suggest that their academic and career needs have not been met.

First-Generation College Students

First-generation college students share many overlapping concerns with community college students
in the area of lack of preparation, lack of social support, and perceived barriers. According to Engle
and Tinto (2008), about 24% of all postsecondary students enrolled in 2007 were first-generation col-
lege students. As with community college students, they were highly likely to be required to take reme-
dial courses.
In a qualitative study, Jehangir (2010) found that going to college was generally viewed as a means
of upward mobility for first-generation students and their families and generally represented a chance
to enhance one’s social status and to achieve financial stability. Despite these aspirations, however,
like community college students, many first-generation college students do not complete a bachelor’s
degree. The NCES reported that 26% of first-generation students who began college discontinued prior
to graduation, compared with 7% of students whose parent(s) attended college (Horn, Nevill, & Grif-
fith, 2006). While several factors could contribute to this high dropout rate, many first-generation stu-
dents have reported feeling a lack of connection with the classroom material and with their fellow
students (Jehangir, 2010). According to Tinto (1993), this lack of integration into the campus environ-
ment has often been a primary cause of attrition for both first-generation and traditional college
students.
In addition to problems with integration into the college environment, some first-generation college
students may be apprehensive about attending college long before they start. A study of middle school
students found that those whose parents had not attended college endorsed a lower level of self-
efficacy regarding their ability to succeed, a higher level of negative outcome expectations regarding
the pursuit of a higher education, and more perceived barriers to success than their peers with college-
educated parents (Gibbons & Borders, 2010). Other studies have shown that perceived barriers to suc-
cess such as a lack of academic preparation, or a lack of support from faculty or mentors, may interfere
with career goals and academic success (Dennis et al., 2005; Owens et al., 2010). Owens, Lacey,
Rawls, and Holbert-Quince suggested that first generation African American students generally saw
the college environment as ‘‘unwelcoming’’ and had difficulty feeling connected, which in turn
affected their level of focus on career goals and career identity. Dennis, Phinney, and Chuateco
(2005) similarly suggested that peer and family support were strong predictors of commitment to com-
pleting college for ethnically diverse first-generation students.
Mehta, Newbold, and O’Rourke found that first-generation students were less likely to be involved
in campus activities and were more likely to lack social and financial support than baccalaureate stu-
dents. Lack of involvement in campus activities suggests first-generation students as a whole have had
difficulty integrating into the campus environment, which might also have given them less opportunity
than baccalaureate students to learn about and utilize career services. Additionally, lack of social sup-
port may have implications for career development. Students who discontinue their college education
early in the process may not have had the opportunity to find academic and career role models. Lack of
role models, in addition to lack of prior preparation, may be indicative of less exposure to a wide vari-
ety of careers. This may place many first-generation students in an earlier exploratory phase of the
career development process than their baccalaureate counterparts.
Furthermore, many first-generation college students reportedly come from low-income back-
grounds (Choy, 2001), and many community college students need to maintain a full-time workload
while attending college (Davies & Casey, 1999). Therefore, SES may be an important variable to
Harlow and Bowman 515

consider when assessing CDSE and career maturity for both groups. To date, very few studies have
examined the relationship between CDSE or career maturity and SES. The few studies available indi-
cate that SES may have a relationship with CDSE (Hsieh & Huang, 2014; Patel, Salahuddin, &
O’Brien, 2008; Thompson & Subich, 2006) and career maturity (Kim & Oh, 2013). Although research
on SES has produced mixed results, with some studies finding no relationship between SES and gen-
eral self-efficacy (Tang, Fouad, & Smith, 1999) or career maturity (Flouri & Buchanan, 2002), this
variable has received little research attention with regard to community college and first-generation
students and requires further exploration.

CDSE
CDSE is defined as the extent to which individuals believe they are capable of making an appropriate
career decision (Betz & Hackett, 1981). A few studies have examined the career-related self-efficacy
of community college students, with at least one study specifically examining career decision-making.
For example, Rotberg, Brown, and Ware (1987) found in their study of community college students
that high levels of career self-efficacy predicted a wider range of perceived career options. Similarly,
Luzzo (1993) found that the career maturity and CDSE of community college students were positively
and significantly correlated. Additionally, in a study of Hispanic-identified women attending a com-
munity college, Rivera, Blumberg, Chen, Ponterotto, and Flores (2007) demonstrated a significant and
positive relationship between acculturation and career self-efficacy in fields traditionally dominated
by women.
Furthermore, some of the other factors discussed in the literature available on community college
and first-generation students such as perceived barriers to success (i.e., Dennis et al., 2005) and lack of
social support (i.e., Davies & Casey, 1999) have been shown to have a negative relationship with career-
related self-efficacy in studies with baccalaureate student samples. For example, both Quimby and
O’Brien (2004) and Lopez and Ann-Yi (2006) found lack of social support and high levels of perceived
career barriers to be significant predictors of CDSE among female baccalaureate students. Although
academic-related self-efficacy has received some research attention among first-generation students
(i.e., Garriott, Flores, & Martens, 2013; Gibbons & Border, 2010), career-related self-efficacy has yet
to be fully examined with this population.
In addition, studies utilizing primarily baccalaureate student samples have demonstrated that CDSE
had a strong relationship with several other career-related variables. Career indecision has been shown
to have a consistently negative relationship with CDSE (Betz & Voyten, 1997; Creed, Patton, & Bar-
trum, 2004). CDSE has also been shown to correlate positively and highly with self-esteem (Brown,
Reedy, Fountain, Johnson, & Dichiser, 2000; Creed et al., 2004), social prestige (Thompson & Subich,
2006), and social support (Garcia, Restubog, Tolendano, Tolentino, & Rafferty, 2012; Lopez & Ann-
Yi, 2006; Patel et al., 2008) and negatively with perceived barriers to accomplishing career goals
(Creed & Patton, 2003). Combined, these studies provide compelling evidence for the importance
of CDSE to overall baccalaureate student career development. This body of research also provides sup-
port for a possible relationship between CDSE and other career variables related to the community col-
lege student population.

Career Maturity
Like CDSE, career maturity may also be related to some of the variables described in the community
college and first-generation literature, such as lack of social support (Schmidt & Nilsson, 2006) and
perceived barriers to success (Hirschi, 2011). Career maturity refers to an individual’s ability and
readiness to make career choices (Crites & Savickas, 1996). This includes possessing adequate knowl-
edge of the world of work and a realistic understanding of the steps required to attain a given career
516 Journal of Career Development 43(6)

goal (Creed & Patton, 2003). A few of the previously discussed studies on community college students
demonstrated findings that may relate to these concepts such as a need for basic career information
(Olson & Matkin, 1992; Simon & Tovar, 2004) and general feelings of indecisiveness (Simon &
Tovar, 2004). In addition, social support, which has also often been found to be lacking for both com-
munity college and first-generation students (e.g., Davies & Casey, 1999; Mehta et al., 2011), has been
shown to have a moderately strong positive relationship with career maturity (Schmidt & Nilsson,
2006; Stern, Norman, & Zevon, 1991).
Additionally, baccalaureate students who reported high CDSE also reported greater career maturity
(Luzzo, 1993). Career maturity has also been found to relate positively to aspiration-occupation con-
gruence (Luzzo, 1995), indicating that those who are working in part-time jobs that relate to their
career goals are more likely to report high levels of career maturity than those whose jobs are unrelated
to their career goals. Career maturity for both high school and middle school students has been found to
be higher for those with work experience than for those with no work experience (Creed & Patton,
2003; Flouri & Buchanan, 2002). This connection between work experience and higher levels of career
development may have implications for community college students who tend to have a greater wealth
of work experience than baccalaureate students (Bailey et al., 2005).
Yet another study involving secondary school students showed that students with higher career
readiness, which is a component of career maturity (Savickas & Porfeli, 2011), demonstrated higher
occupational knowledge and fewer perceived barriers to success than those with lower readiness levels
(Hirschi, 2011). Since research has shown that community college and first-generation students have
reported low levels of occupational knowledge and high levels of perceived barriers to college com-
pletion, this may indicate that these students could have had lower levels of career maturity than bac-
calaureate students.

Hypotheses
Given the importance of both career maturity and CDSE as demonstrated by previous research, the
purpose of the current study is to learn more about how community college students and first-
generation college students differ from baccalaureate students on these variables. Since the aforemen-
tioned studies suggested that lack of social support is likely to be present in both community college
and first-generation student populations, this variable was controlled for in order to better compare
groups on CDSE and career maturity. The following hypotheses were tested: (a) first-generation com-
munity college students will report lower levels of CDSE and career maturity than first-generation bac-
calaureate students, (b) first-generation baccalaureate students will report lower levels of CDSE and
career maturity than nonfirst-generation baccalaureate students when controlling for social support,
and (c) regardless of student group, individuals reporting high levels of SES will differ from those
reporting low levels of SES on CDSE and career maturity.

Method
Participants
Participants included 168 students attending a midsized Midwestern university and 100 participants
from a neighboring community college, for a total of 268 participants. Self-reported racial/ethnic com-
position of the two samples was similar with 1% Asian American, 7% African American/Black, 85%
Caucasian/White, 2% Hispanic, and 4% multiracial baccalaureate student participants and 1% Amer-
ican Indian, 10% African American/Black, 75% Caucasian/White, 4% Hispanic, and 9% multiracial
community college participants. Inclusion criteria required students to be between the ages of 18 and
25. The mean age of baccalaureate students was 19.34 (SD ¼ 0.79), while the mean age of community
Harlow and Bowman 517

college students was 21.03 (SD ¼ 1.89). Baccalaureate students were required to hold either freshman
or sophomore status in order to participate. These criteria were selected to ensure that all students were
at comparable levels of career development. Of the 268 total participants, 195 were women and 73
were men (baccalaureate: 37 men and 131 women; community college: 36 men and 64 women).
In addition, approximately 14% of baccalaureate students and 36% of community college students
reported a household income of less than US$19,000/year, 54% of baccalaureate students and 48% of
community college students reported US$20,000–60,000/year for household income, and 29% of bac-
calaureate students and 14% of community college students reported a household income of over
US$60,000/year. Finally, about 1% of baccalaureate students reported working full-time compared
to 19% of community college students who reported maintaining a full-time job while taking classes.
Approximately 42% of baccalaureate students and 46% of community college students reported work-
ing part-time, while about 57% of baccalaureate students and 35% of community college students
reported not working while taking classes.

Measures
A total of three instruments were used to test hypotheses. These include (a) CDSE Scale–Short Form
(CDSE-SF), (b) Career Maturity Inventory–Revised (CMI-R), Attitude Scale, and (c) Multidimen-
sional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS). Participants were also given a demographic ques-
tionnaire at the end of the survey.

CDSE-SF. The CDSE–SF was developed by Betz, Klein, and Taylor (1996) as an abbreviated version of
the original CDSE Scale (Taylor & Betz, 1983). Items in this scale addressed five unique content areas
including accurate self-appraisal, gathering occupational information, goal selection, making plans for
the future, and problem-solving. The CDSE-SF contains a total of 25 items. All items are presented on
a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (no confidence at all) to 5 (complete confidence). Sample items
include ‘‘accurately assess your abilities’’ and ‘‘determine what your ideal job would be.’’ A high total
score indicates that the individual has a high level of CDSE. Reliability for the CDSE-SF is strong.
Internal consistency (Cronbach’s a) for the original normative sample ranged from .73 (self-appraisal)
to .83 (goal selection) on the subscales. The a for the total measure was .94 (Betz, Klein, & Taylor,
1996). Reliability based on the total score for the current study was a ¼ .93. Betz et al. demonstrated
construct validity through a negative relationship between responses on the CDSE-SF and responses
on the career indecision subscale of the Career Decision Scale (.63, indecision subscale) and a pos-
itive relationship between CDSE and career identity as measured by responses on the My Vocational
Situation (.63, total scale).

CMI-R Attitude Scale. The CMI-R Attitude Scale (Crites & Savickas, 1996) measures the degree to
which individuals are prepared to make appropriate and realistic career choices. The CMI-R Attitude
Scale contains the following five subscales: decisiveness, involvement, independence, orientation, and
compromise. The scale contains 25 statements, 5 for each of the subdomains, for which the respondent
chooses agree or disagree. Sample items include, ‘‘I have little or no idea what working will be like’’
and ‘‘I know very little about the requirements of the job.’’ Higher scores indicate higher levels of
career maturity. Reliability estimates for the CMI-R Attitude Scale are moderate. The original measure
(before revisions) had an internal consistency coefficient of .64 for the total score, with subscale scores
ranging from .50 to .72 for the original norming sample (Busacca & Taber, 2002). Crites and Savickas
maintained that these estimates should also be applicable to the CMI-R Attitude Scale. Reliability for
the current study was moderate at a ¼ .85. Construct validity for the CMI-R was demonstrated by
Busacca and Taber with a positive relationship between the Occupational Plans Questionnaire and the
CMI-R, R ¼ .35, p < .01.
518 Journal of Career Development 43(6)

MSPSS. The MSPSS (Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988) contains 12 total items that address the
extent to which individuals feel supported by (1) family, (2) friends, and (3) significant others. Item
responses are recorded on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from very strongly disagree to very
strongly agree. Higher scores indicate higher levels of social support. Sample items include ‘‘My fam-
ily really tries to help me,’’ and ‘‘I have friends with whom I can share my joys and sorrows.’’ Internal
consistency for the MSPSS is fairly strong with coefficient as on the original sample of baccalaureate
students with a total scale score reliability of .85 (Zimet et al., 1988). Internal consistency for the cur-
rent study was strong at a ¼ .93. Zimet et al. also demonstrated moderate to low construct validity
between responses on the MSPSS and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist. Scores on the depression and
anxiety subscales of the checklist correlated with responses on the MSPSS at .24 and .18 (total
score), respectively. In addition, Zimet, Powell, Farley, Werkman, and Berkoff (1990) reported that
responses on the family support subscale were higher for adolescents whose parents reported more
contact with their children (F ¼ 34.47, p < .001), indicating adequate construct validity.

Demographic questionnaire. In addition to the aforementioned instruments, participants were given a

demographic questionnaire. The questionnaire contained items pertaining to age, gender, ethnicity,
class standing, characteristics of family, generation in college, academic major, grade point average,
current workload, and household income. Household income was divided into three categories using
the local median household income of about US$40,000 per year as a midpoint (low—less than
US$19,000/year, medium—US$20,000–$60,000/year, and high—over US$60,000/year) in order to
determine SES. The purpose of obtaining most of the other information was to better describe the sam-
ple population. Information on generation and college was used to separate students into groups.

Procedure
Students were recruited via e-mail or in person. All baccalaureate student participants completed the
electronic survey, but very few community college students responded to the online survey. Therefore,
the majority of community college student participants were recruited in person on campus. The
response rate was approximately 2% of approximately 13,400 baccalaureate students who were sent
a recruitment e-mail via university listserv and 95% of approximately 106 community college students
who were approached in person. As an incentive to participate, students were offered the option of
registering for a gift card drawing via e-mail for the opportunity to win one of four US$50 gift card
prizes. Participants recruited in person completed a paper survey identical to the electronic version.
Responses to both electronic and paper versions of the survey were anonymous, containing no identi-
fying information.

Results
In order to compare significant differences between groups on CDSE and career maturity, an analysis
of variance (ANOVA) was selected to analyze the data. Since social support appeared to have a strong
relationship to the dependent variables based on previous research (i.e., Garcia et al., 2012; Schmidt &
Nilsson, 2006), this variable was entered as a covariate when analyzing CDSE. A correlational analysis
revealed a nonsignificant relationship between career maturity and social support; therefore, social
support was not included as a covariate in the analysis of career maturity. The relationship between
each dependent variable and independent variables was assessed using a 2 (college: baccalaureate,
community)  2 (generational status: first generation and nonfirst generation)  3 (SES: low, medium,
and high) factorial analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for CDSE and a 2 (college: baccalaureate, com-
munity)  2 (generational status: first generation and nonfirst generation)  3 (SES: low, medium, and
high) factorial ANOVA for career maturity.
Harlow and Bowman 519

Table 1. Between-Subjects ANCOVA, DV: CDSE.

Variable df F Sig. Z2p

Social support (covariate) 1 15.478 .000** .597

Generation 1 1.427 .233 .006
College type 1 26.242 .000** .096
SES 2 0.204 .816 .002
Generation  College Type 1 6.491 .011* .026
Generation  SES 2 3.035 .050* .024
College Type  SES 2 0.050 .951 .000
Generation  College Type  SES 2 2.442 .089 .019
Note. SES ¼ socioeconomic status; DV ¼ dependent variable; ANOVA ¼ analysis of variance.
*p < .05. **p < .001.

Preliminary analyses indicated that all variables were normally distributed and all assumptions
were met including equal variance between groups and nonsignificant differences between groups
on social support, indicating independence of the covariate (social support) from the dependent vari-
able (CDSE). In addition, an interaction term between the covariate and each of the independent
variables was nonsignificant, indicating homogeneity of regression slopes. The correlation matrix
revealed no multicolinearity between dependent variables. Correlational values for the covariate
and dependent variables were linearly related, and CDSE and social support were significantly
correlated.
Results of the ANCOVA for CDSE revealed no effect for generation alone, but a significant inter-
action effect for generation by college, F(1, 261) ¼ 6.49, p < .05 (see Table 1). Mean scores were low-
est for nonfirst-generation baccalaureate (M ¼ 86.53) students and highest for nonfirst-generation
community college students (M ¼ 100.91). Higher scores indicate higher levels of CDSE. The effect
size for the interaction between generation and college was small at Z2p .02. There was also a main
effect for college with an effect size of Z2p .09. Mean scores in all groups indicated ‘‘moderate’’ to
‘‘much’’ confidence in making career decisions. None of the groups self-reported mean scores that
would indicate a low overall level of CDSE.
The ANOVA for career maturity revealed a significant main effect for generation, F(1, 261) ¼ 6.10,
p < .05 (see Table 2), with first-generation students (M ¼ 36.39) reporting lower mean scores than
nonfirst-generation students (M ¼ 37.73). Higher scores indicate higher levels of career maturity. This
effect was also small at Z2p .02. A significant main effect was also found for college, F(1, 261) ¼
281.79, p < .001, with community college students (M ¼ 41.61) reporting a higher level of
career maturity than baccalaureate students (M ¼ 32.51). The effect was large at Z2p .53. The
responses of all groups indicated mostly ‘‘mature’’ answers and none of the means would generally
be considered low.
While there were no main effects for SES on either CDSE or career maturity, there was a signi-
ficant interaction effect for generation by SES, F(2, 261) ¼ 3.03, p < .05, on CDSE. First-generation
students reporting high levels of SES (M ¼ 88.34) indicated lower levels of CDSE than first-
generation students reporting low (M ¼ 94.31) or moderate (M ¼ 91.81) levels of SES. Mean
scores for first-generation students in the high SES category were also lower than those of
nonfirst-generation students in all SES categories (low: M ¼ 91.46, moderate: M ¼ 91.93, and high:
M ¼ 97.79). This finding represented a small effect at Z2p .02 and was based on fairly small cell sizes
(low: 29, moderate: 50, and high: 19). None of the scores in these groups indicated low overall levels
of CDSE. All groups indicated either moderate or much confidence in their ability to make career-
related decisions.
520 Journal of Career Development 43(6)

Table 2. Between-subjects ANOVA, DV: Career maturity.

Variable df F Sig. Z2p

Generation 1 6.106 .014* .024

College type 1 281.792 .000** .532
SES 2 1.468 .232 .012
Generation  College type 1 0.982 .323 .004
Generation  SES 2 0.928 .397 .007
College type  SES 2 1.186 .307 .009
Generation  College type  SES 2 0.120 .887 .001

Note. SES ¼ socioeconomic status; DV ¼ dependent variable; ANOVA ¼ analysis of variance.

*p < .05. **p < .001.

Discussion
Based on similarities between first-generation and community college students in the literature with
regard to lack of academic preparation, lack of social support, and high perceived barriers to success
(Davies & Casey, 1999; Jehangir, 2010; Mehta et al., 2011), these groups were expected to report sim-
ilar levels of CDSE and career maturity. Community college and first-generation students were
expected to have lower levels of CDSE and career maturity than baccalaureate students and
nonfirst-generation students. While results showed that first-generation community college students
and first-generation baccalaureate students reported similar levels of CDSE, first-generation commu-
nity college students reported higher levels of CDSE than nonfirst-generation baccalaureate students.
This finding is somewhat inconsistent with previous studies in which community college students indi-
cated low levels of CDSE (Luzzo, 1993) and a lack of occupational information (Olson & Matkin,
1992; Simon & Tovar, 2004), which is a component of CDSE. While the reason for this difference
is not apparent in the current study, one might speculate that nonfirst-generation baccalaureate students
may enter college with less clearly defined career goals than community college students who are
expected to complete their studies in half the time required for a bachelor’s degree. This may leave
baccalaureate students in general feeling less efficacious in making career decisions. In addition, per-
haps as suggested by Jehangir (2010), first-generation baccalaureate students experience greater levels
of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to be the first in their families to succeed in college than nonfirst-
generation students, leading to greater motivation to establish career goals. It is worth noting that these
scores are based on self-report and therefore reflect individually perceived rather than actual abilities,
therefore the difference in scores between nonfirst-generation baccalaureate students and others
groups could be the result of differing impressions of personal self-efficacy.
First-generation students in both settings reported lower levels of career maturity than nonfirst-
generation students, with baccalaureate students reporting significantly lower levels. While there were
statistically significant differences between groups, all groups indicated that they would be somewhat
prepared to engage in college planning activities. While this finding generally appears consistent with
the lower levels of integration and academic and career preparation reported by first-generation stu-
dents in previous studies (Dennis et al., 2005; Jehangir, 2010; Owens et al., 2010), the reason for lower
baccalaureate student scores is unclear. As with CDSE, baccalaureate students may feel less pressure
to engage in career exploration at an early stage in their academic careers, which could lead to a lesser
degree of career readiness or occupational knowledge. In addition, while the impact of work experi-
ence on CDSE and career maturity was beyond the scope of this study, 54% of community college
students in the current sample reported working more than 20 hr per week while attending classes,
in comparison to only 16% of baccalaureate students who reported working a similar number of hours.
Harlow and Bowman 521

Since work experience has been associated with higher levels of career maturity in previous research
(Creed & Patton, 2003; Flouri & Buchanan, 2002), this variable should be explored further in order to
assess for a relationship with CDSE and other career-related constructs.
Contrary to Hypotheses A and B, when controlling for social support, nonfirst-generation bacca-
laureate students reported lower levels of CDSE than first-generation baccalaureate and community
college students. While many factors could account for the differences found between community
college and baccalaureate students, a difference in social support does not account for the variance
in scores on CDSE. Perhaps perceived barriers to success, which were indicated in the literature as
possible contributors to both CDSE and career maturity (i.e., Dennis et al., 2005; Gibbons & Borders,
2010), could be examined as a covariate in future research to better illustrate the differences between
both first-generation and nonfirst-generation and baccalaureate and community college students. In
addition, the lack of academic preparation and low completion rates found by Bailey, Jenkins, and
Leinbach (2005) among community college students were expected to contribute to lower levels of
CDSE, as they may interfere with completing academic and therefore career goals, yet community col-
lege students reported the highest levels of CDSE in this study. Lack of preparation and other variables
related to academic self-efficacy should also be examined further within the community college pop-
ulation to determine whether they have a relationship with CDSE and career maturity.
Furthermore, additional aspects related to the differences between baccalaureate and community
college students on CDSE and career maturity should be explored further. One possible factor that may
affect both of these variables is career clarity. Since all of the students in this study were in the first 2
years of their education, the baccalaureate students may have spent less time considering their future
career path than the community college students who would be graduating in the near future. Several
major courses of study found in universities, such as psychology, which represented about a third of
this baccalaureate sample, do not necessarily present students with a clear vocational path the way pro-
fessional programs offered at community college such as nursing or culinary arts (which were repre-
sented about 35% of this community college sample) do. This might also leave students with less
developed career goals that could impact career maturity and CDSE.
Finally, first-generation students coming from high-SES backgrounds reported the lowest levels of
CDSE. It is difficult to speculate why this group would experience lower levels of CDSE than low or
moderate SES groups. While career-related research findings on SES have been inconsistent, studies that
have found a statistically significant relationship between career constructs and SES have generally
found a positive relationship between these variables (i.e., Hsieh & Huang, 2014; Thompson & Subich,
2006), unlike the negative relationship found in the current study. There are several unmeasured factors
that could influence first-generation students from high-SES backgrounds. These could perhaps include
social pressure to attend college, whether interested or not, or perhaps hesitancy to use career services
due to a lack of understanding of world of work, since baccalaureate students in this study reported work-
ing less than community college students. These factors may indicate both a lack of motivation in form-
ing career goals and in acquiring occupational information, which are both components of CDSE.
Perhaps a qualitative study that examined the concerns and career decision-making histories of first-
generation students reporting high SES could shed light on career goals and motivation to attend college.
In addition, these findings should be replicated to determine whether or not these results are idiosyncratic to
the current sample, given particularly small cell sizes, or whether they are related to other characteristics of
this unique group. Hsieh and Huang suggested that inconsistency in the way in which SES is measured may
lead to mixed results in the study of this variable. Since ‘‘high’’ SES in this study was designated as a house-
hold income over US$60,000/year, the upper limit of this category is unknown, and the range between par-
ticipants in this group could be potentially broad, representing important differences in supportive
resources. Given these limitations, this result should be interpreted with caution. Further exploratory
research is needed in order to determine how SES might affect the career decision-making process and
whether or not SES may act as a moderator of other important career variables.
522 Journal of Career Development 43(6)

Another limitation of this study may be the way in which ‘‘first generation’’ was defined. In the
current study, first-generation students were defined as those who indicated that their parents had never
enrolled in college. Past studies on first-generation students have presented vague descriptions of this
concept. Definitions in other studies have varied from having parents who never attended postsecond-
ary education to having parents who may have attended but never graduated from college. This differ-
ence in the way that first-generation students are operationalized between studies makes comparing
results difficult. In addition, community college students can vary broadly in academic background,
goal, and purpose, making it difficult to generalize students in the current study to those with signif-
icantly different career histories and goals.
Finally, the decision to attend either a community college or university is dependent upon several
factors. The current economy and job market can have a powerful impact on one’s career decision-
making. Therefore, a study of community college students could produce varying results depending
upon the current economic climate. At the time of this writing, the job market is particularly limited
and the cost of a baccalaureate education increasingly expensive. These factors may have an impact on
who is attending community college and could also impact how structured or focused a student is when
exploring potential careers.

Conclusion
Although all groups in this study reported generally adequate levels of both CDSE and career maturity,
first-generation students reported lower levels of career maturity than nonfirst-generation students, and
nonfirst-generation baccalaureate students reported the lower levels of CDSE than other groups. This
may indicate that these groups might benefit from additional career development programming, such
as greater exposure to occupational information, guidance in goal setting, and increased self-exploration.
Contrary to previous research (i.e., Luzzo, 1993), results demonstrated that community college students
possess adequate to high levels of CDSE and career maturity compared with baccalaureate students.
Whether this is due to variables/characteristics unique to community college students or to the nature
of community college programs is unknown. Further exploration of community college students and the
community college experience, in relation to career planning and development, would be helpful in pro-
viding guidance counselors and prospective college students with more information.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

References
Bailey, T., Jenkins, D., & Leinbach, T. (2005). What we know about community college low-income and minority
student outcomes: Descriptive statistics from national surveys. New York, NY: Community College Research
Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations to perceived career
options in college women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 399–410. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.
28.5.399
Betz, N. E., Klein, K., & Taylor, K. (1996). Evaluation of a short form of the Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale.
Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 47–57. doi:10.1177/106907279600400103
Harlow and Bowman 523

Betz, N. E., & Voyten, K. K. (1997). Efficacy and outcome expectations influence career exploration and decid-
edness. The Career Development Quarterly, 46, 179–189. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.1997.tb01004.x
Blustein, D. L., Chaves, A. P., Diemer, M. A., Gallagher, L. A., Marshall, K. G., Sirin, S., . . . Bhati, K. S. (2002).
Voices of the forgotten half: The role of social class in the school-to-work transition. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 49, 311–323. doi:10.1037//0022-0167.49.3.311
Brown, M. T. (2000). Blueprint for the assessment of socio-structural influences in career choice and decision-
making. Journal of Career Assessment, 8, 371–378. doi:10.1177/106907270000800406
Brown, C., Reedy, D., Fountain, J., Johnson, A., & Dichiser, T. (2000). Battered women’s career decision self-
efficacy: Further insights and contributing factors. Journal of Career Assessment, 8, 251–265. doi:10.1177/
106907270000800304
Busacca, L. A., & Taber, B. J. (2002). The career maturity inventory-revised: A preliminary psychometric inves-
tigation. Journal of Career Assessment, 10, 441–455. doi:10.1177/1069072702238406
Choy, J. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary, access, persistence and attainment
(NCES 201-126). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
Retrieved from nces.ed.gov
Creed, P. A., & Patton, W. (2003). Differences in career attitude and career knowledge for high school students
with and without paid work experience. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 3,
21–33. doi:10.1023/A:1022674528730
Creed, P. A., Patton, W., & Bartrum, D. (2004). Internal and external barriers, cognitive style, and the career
development variables of focus and indecision. Journal of Career Development, 30, 277–294. doi:10.1023/
B: JOCD.0000025116.17855.ea
Crites, J. O., & Savickas, M. L. (1996). Revision of the career maturity inventory. Journal of Career Assessment,
4, 131–138. doi:10.1177/106907279600400202
Davies, T. G., & Casey, K. (1999). Transfer student experiences: Comparing their academic and social lives at the
community college and university. College Student Journal, 33, 60–72.
Dennis, J. M., Phinney, J. S., & Chuateco, L. I. (2005). The role of motivation, parental support, and peer support
in the academic success of ethnic minority first-generation college students. Journal of College Student Devel-
opment, 46, 223–236. doi:10.1353/csd.2005.0023
Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, first-generation students.
Washington, DC: The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education. Retrieved from www.
pellinstitute.org
Flouri, E., & Buchanan, A. (2002). The role of work-related skills and career role models in adolescent career
maturity. The Career Development Quarterly, 51, 36–43. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2002.tb00590.x
Garcia, P. R. J. M., Restubog, S. L. D., Toledano, L. S., Tolentino, L. R., & Rafferty, A. E. (2012). Differential
moderation effects of student and parent-related support in the relationship between learning goal orientation
and career decision self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 22–33. doi:10.1177/1069072711417162
Garriott, P. O., Flores, L. Y., & Martens, M. P. (2013). Predicting the math/science career goals of low-income
prospective first-generation college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 200–209. doi:10.1037/
a0032074
Gibbons, M. M., & Borders, L. D. (2010). Prospective first-generation college students: A social-cognitive per-
spective. The Career Development Quarterly, 58, 194–208. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2010.tb00186.x
Goldrick-Rab, S. (2010). Challenges and opportunities for improving community college student success. Review
of Educational Research, 80, 437–469. doi:10.3102/0034654310370163
Hirschi, A. (2011). Career-choice readiness in adolescence: Developmental trajectories and individual differ-
ences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 340–348. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.005
Hoachlander, G., Sikora, A. C., Horn, L., & Carroll, C. D. (2003). Community college students: Goals, academic
preparation, and outcomes (NCES 2003-164). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Cen-
ter for Education Statistics. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov
524 Journal of Career Development 43(6)

Horn, L., Nevill, S., & Griffith, J. (2006). Profile of undergraduates in U.S. postsecondary education institutions:
2003-2004, with a special analysis of community college students (NCES 2006-184). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov
Hsieh, H.-H., & Huang, J.-T. (2014). The effects of socioeconomic status and proactive personality on career deci-
sion self-efficacy. The Career Development Quarterly, 62, 29–43. doi:0.1002/j.2161-0045 2014.00068.x
Jehangir, R. (2010). Stories as knowledge: Bringing the lived experience of first-generation college students into
the academy. Urban Education, 45, 533–553. doi:10.1177/0042085910372352
Kim, K.-N., & Oh, S.-H. (2013). Effects of social constraints on career maturity: The mediating effect of the time
perspective. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14, 221–229. doi:10.1007/s12564-013-9240-6
Lopez, F. G., & Ann-Yi, S. (2006). Predictors of career indecision in three racial/ethnic groups of college women.
Journal of Career Development, 33, 29–46. doi:10.1177/0894845306287341
Luzzo, D. A. (1993). Career decision-making differences between traditional and non-traditional college students.
Journal of Career Development, 20, 113–120. doi:10.1007/BF02110343
Luzzo, D. A. (1995). The relationship between career aspiration-current occupation congruence and the career
maturity of undergraduates. Journal of Employment Counseling, 32, 132–140. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1920.
1995.tb00983.x
Luzzo, D. A., & Ward, B. E. (1995). The relative contributions of self-efficacy and locus of control to the predic-
tion of vocational congruence. Journal of Career Development, 21, 307–317. doi:10.1007/BF02106154
Mehta, S. S., Newbold, J. J., & O’Rourke, M. A. (2011). Why do first-generation students fail? College Student
Journal, 45, 20–35. Retrieved from www.projectinnovation.com/college-student-journal.html
Mutter, P. (1992). Tinto’s theory of departure and community college student persistence. Journal of College
Student Development, 33, 310–317. Retrieved from www.press.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_college_student_
development/
Olson, T. F., & Matkin, R. E. (1992). Student and counselor perceptions of career counselor work activities in a
community college. The Career Development Quarterly, 40, 324–333. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.1992.
tb00339.x
Owens, D., Lacey, K., Rawls, G., & Holbert-Quince, J. (2010). First-generation African American male college
students: Implications for career counselors. The Career Development Quarterly, 58, 291–300. doi:10.1002/j.
2161-0045.2010.tb00179.x
Patel, S. G., Salahuddin, N. M., & O’Brien, K. M. (2008). Career decision-making self-efficacy of Vietnamese
adolescents: The role of acculturation, social support, socioeconomic status, and racism. Journal of Career
Development, 34, 218–240. doi:10.1177/0894845307308488
Peterson, S. L. (1993). Career decision-making self-efficacy and institutional integration of underprepared college
students. Research in Higher Education, 34, 659–684. Retrieved from http://0-www.jstor.org.opac.sfsu.edu/
stable/40196119
Quimby, J. L., & O’Brien, K. M. (2004). Predictors of student and career decision self-efficacy among non-
traditional college women. The Career Development Quarterly, 52, 323–339. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.
2004.tb00949.x
Rivera, L. M., Blumberg, F., Chen, E. C., Ponterotto, J. G., & Flores, L. Y. (2007). The effects of perceived bar-
riers, role models, and acculturation on the career self-efficacy and career consideration of Hispanic women.
The Career Development Quarterly, 56, 47–61. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2007.tb00019.x
Rotberg, H. L., Brown, D., & Ware, W. B. (1987). Career self-efficacy expectations and perceived range of career
options in community college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 164–170. doi:10.1037/0022-
0167.34.2.164
Savickas, M. L., & Porfeli, E. J. (2011). Revision of the career maturity inventory: The adaptability form. Journal
of Career Assessment, 19, 355–374. doi:10.1177/1069072711409342
Schmidt, C. K., & Nilsson, J. E. (2006). The effects of simultaneous development processes: Factors relating to the
career development of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. The Career Development Quarterly, 55, 22–37. doi:
10.1002/j.2161-0045.2006.tb00002.x
Harlow and Bowman 525

Simon, M. A., & Tovar, E. (2004). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Career Factors Inventory on a community
college sample. Journal of Career Assessment, 12, 255–269. doi:10.1177/1069072703261538
Stern, M., Norman, S. L., & Zevon, M. A. (1991). Career development of adolescent career patients: A compara-
tive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 431–439. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.38.4.431
Tang, M., Fouad, N. A., & Smith, P. L. (1999). Asian Americans’ career choices: A path model to examine factors
influencing their career choices. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 142–157. Retrieved from http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001879198916517
Taylor, K. M., & Betz, N. E. (1983). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the understanding and treatment of
career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 63–81. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(83)90006-4
Thompson, M. N., & Subich, L. M. (2006). The relation of social status to the career decision-making process.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 289–301. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2006.04.008
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Ware, D. A. (2009). Career maturity and college persistence: A longitudinal study of first-year students (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing (3335991).
Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional scale of perceived social
support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 30–41. doi:10.1080/00223891.2013.838170
Zimet, G. D., Powell, S. S., Farley, G. K., Werkman, S., & Berkoff, K. A. (1990). Psychometric characteristics of
the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 610–617. doi:
10.1080/00223891.1990.9674095

Author Biographies
Alicia J. Harlow, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Psychology Department at The Sage Colleges in upstate
New York. She earned her doctorate from Ball State University and her master’s degree from San Francisco State
University. Her research and clinical interests include career development, multicultural training, community-
based group counseling, and women’s education. She currently spends most of her spare time studying for her
licensing exam and remodeling her new house.

Sharon L. Bowman, PhD, HSPP, ABPP, LMHC, is a professor and chair in the Department of Counseling Psy-
chology and Guidance Services at Ball State University. She is also a psychologist in private practice in Muncie,
IN. She earned her doctoral degree from Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Her internship was completed in
the counseling center at the University of Delaware. Her research and clinical interests are in supervision, mentor-
ing and training, disaster psychology, and broadly defined issues of diversity. When not reading e-mails, she is
often found either testing a new recipe in her kitchen or playing with one of her many fountain pens.