Next Article in Journal
Analysis of the EU Secondary Biomass Availability and Conversion Processes to Produce Advanced Biofuels: Use of Existing Databases for Assessing a Metric Evaluation for the 2025 Perspective
Next Article in Special Issue
Making a Commitment to Your Future: Investigating the Effect of Career Exploration and Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy on the Relationship between Career Concern and Career Commitment
Previous Article in Journal
Anthropic Effects on the Biodiversity of the Habitats of Ferula gummosa
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 14
10.3390/su13147876
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

How Do Students Become Good Workers? Investigating the Impact of Gender and School on the Relationship between Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy and Career Exploration

by
Shi Chen
1,
Huaruo Chen
1,2,
Hairong Ling
1 and
Xueying Gu
1,*
1
School of Education Science, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210046, China
2
Center for Research and Reform in Education, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MA 21286, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(14), 7876; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147876
Submission received: 16 June 2021 / Revised: 4 July 2021 / Accepted: 12 July 2021 / Published: 14 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Career Development)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In the field of vocational psychology, career decision-making self-efficacy (CDMSE) and career exploration (CE) are considered the crucial factors for developing a sustainable career. This study investigated the relationship between CDMSE and CE among Chinese high-school students, as well as the moderating effects of gender and school. From 2019 to 2021, 24,273 students from 13 different high schools were recruited in the study (male = 15,050, female = 9223; urban schools = 12,327, rural schools = 11,946). The results showed that (i) male students scored significantly higher than female students in both CDMSE and CE, (ii) students from urban schools scored significantly higher than students from rural schools in both CDMSE and CE, (iii) CDMSE positively predicted CE, and (iv) school moderated the relationship between CDMSE and CE, with the effect of CDMSE on CE stronger among rural school students; a moderating effect of gender was not found. These findings indicate that promoting CDMSE can lead high-school students, especially rural school students, to engage more in CE to ensure sustainable career development under the protean and boundaryless career orientation.

1. Introduction

Sustainable careers were defined as “the sequences of an individual’s different career experiences, reflected through a variety of patterns of continuity over time, thereby crossing several social spaces, characterized by individual agency, herewith providing meaning to the individual” [1] (p. 7). According to the definition of sustainable careers, time, social space, agency and meaning are the four core elements. Time indicates the influences of various career activities and events occurring in the past, present and future; social space emphasizes the importance of external environments on sustainable careers; agency illustrates the impacts of individual differences on sustainable careers; and meaning represents that sustainable careers including both skills development and the meaning of career experiences [1,2]. From a sustainable career perspective, sustainable career development contributes to the personal survival and self-realization value [3]. While living in the ear of a boundaryless and protean career, individuals, especially teenagers, increasingly face the various challenges of developing career sustainability throughout their whole life [4,5]. High-school students are at the stage of exploration [6], which allows for diverse career exploration (CE) activities to promote career-related abilities to make crucial career decisions and identify their future career sustainability [7]. Under the new college-entrance examination policy in China since 2018, career-guidance education for high-school students has attracted more attention from career researchers, educators, and practitioners. Besides, the whole world is suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic, and the considerable changes in the environment have made career development more difficult for students [8]. While facing challenges and difficulties, high-school students urgently need career guidance from schools and family. However, for most Chinese high-school students and educators, career-guidance education is still in its infancy. Some issues about career guidance in China have been discussed, including a shortage of local theoretical career models and career assessments; a lack of professional career educators, practitioners, and counselors; and negative attitudes and beliefs toward career guidance [9]. In addition, compared with Western countries, Chinese society has many differences and unique difficulties, so no Western career education system can be copied completely.
According to the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT), individual input, self-efficacy and environment are three pivotal factors in career development process [10]. The effectiveness of SCCT in promoting sustainable careers has been proved by previous studies [11]. While students try to transit school life to work life, career decision-making self-efficacy (CDMSE) is considered as a crucial factor for students to make appropriate career decisions and enhance career sustainability. CDMSE has been shown to predict the development of career interests in career-related activities [12], career goal formation [13], and engagement in CE activities [14]. A SCCT model of career self-management (CSM) considers career exploration as an adaptive mechanism of individual agency that allows individuals to strengthen career adaptabilities and manage adaptions in sustainable career development [15]. CE is viewed another vital factor for students to make sustainable career-related plans [16], and students who want to do so must actively engage in exploring career options and make subsequent career choices [17]. As mentioned above, sustainable career perspective emphasizes individual and environmental factors related to career development, both CDMSE and CE could be regarded as the individual factors, and the construct of the two factors are often related to the external environment. Numerous studies have concentrated on how CDMSE affects CE, and the positive relationship between them has been tested widely [18,19,20]. However, few studies have focused on that relationship in Chinese students, especially high-school students. Additionally, individual agency and social space have impacts on sustainable careers; therefore, we wonder if gender (male versus female) and school setting (urban versus rural) moderate the relationship between CDMSE and CE?
The main purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationship between CDMSE and CE among Chinese high-school students. Specifically, there were four goals: (i) testing the gender difference in CDMSE and CE, (ii) testing the school difference in CDMSE and CE, (iii) testing the moderating effect of gender on the relationship, and (iv) testing the moderating effect of school on the relationship. In general, this study develops and examines a model that posits to improve CE as the result of CDMSE, aiming to develop foundations of CE and career sustainability for Chinese high school students.

2. Research Theory and Hypothesis

2.1. Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy

SCCT originated from Bandura’s social cognitive theory to further describe the impacts of self-efficacy in an individual’s career behaviors [21]. SCCT interprets the interaction effects between personal and environmental factors that contribute to career decisions, and it considers career decision-making as a process with different factors and choices [22]. In the SCCT model, CDMSE is identified as a vital construct in understanding individuals’ career decision-making processes [23]; it affects individuals’ sustainable career development, long-term targets, vocational identity, and other career behaviors [24]. CDMSE can be defined as an individual’s belief or confidence that they can make appropriate decisions related to their career development, and it has five dimensions: self-appraisal, gathering information, goal selection, planning, and problem-solving [25]. In various studies, CDMSE served as a crucial factor of an individual’s vocational behaviors and outcomes [26,27,28,29], and these findings demonstrate a link between sustainable career development and CDMSE. A meta-analysis showed a positive relationship between CDMSE and career development and a negative relationship between CDMSE and career indecision [30]. An individual with higher CDMSE could better understand various changes related to themself, adjust career behaviors, and have a stronger resolution toward difficulties [31,32]. CDMSE is especially important for high-school students given that adolescents are supposed to make critical career decisions [33]. High-school students with high confidence about their capacity to make sustainable career decisions would have more interest in setting career goals, devoting more time to CE, and probably making sustainable career decisions [34].
SCCT provides several factors that impact CDMSE, such as personal factors (e.g., age and gender), contextual factors (e.g., perceived social supports), and experiential factors (e.g., learning sources) [14]. Although there have been numerous investigations of the relationship between CDMSE and other variables, most did not account for gender in the CDMSE of high-school students, and the results of the few studies of gender difference in CDMSE were inconsistent. For example, Gu et al. investigated the CDMSE of Chinese high-school students and found no gender difference [35], and Jiang recruited undergraduate students from China and South Korea and detected no gender difference [36]. In contrast, according to Abdinoor, young women reported a higher level of CDMSE than young men [27], and according to Kim and Lee, male college students had higher confidence in career decision-making than female students [37]. Similar to gender difference, few studies have assessed the school difference (rural versus urban) in CDMSE. According to Anderson and Brown, there was no significant difference in CDMSE between urban and rural school students [38]. Another study also revealed that urban school students had the same level of CDMSE as rural school students [39]. In recent studies, researchers preferred to recruit participants from a single area (either urban or rural). Therefore, the present study was designed to separately investigate the impacts of gender and school in CDMSE.
Hypothesis 1a.
Male high-school students would score significantly higher than female high-school students in CDMSE.
Hypothesis 1b.
No school difference would be found in CDMSE.

2.2. Career Exploration

CE is also considered a pivotal factor that positively affects sustainable career development among high-school and university students [15]. It refers to an individual’s behaviors and thoughts that gather information related to the progress of their career development, and the two key components of CE are self-exploration and environmental exploration [40]. Self-exploration is an exploratory behavior that aims to clarify an individual’s characteristics including interests, skills, experiences, personality traits, values, abilities, and career development status [41]; environmental exploration is also an exploratory behavior, one that aims to clarify environmental characteristics including job paths, job requirements, education, and training [19]. Although CE behaviors occur at all ages and stages of career development, CE is considered to be most important during late adolescence and early adulthood as first significant life decisions are being approached [39]. There is a consensus in vocational psychology that adolescents engage more in CE; for example, research has indicated that adolescents (i.e., 10th-grade students) engage in more occupational exploration than do children (i.e., 6th-grade students) [42].
For high-school students, engaging more in CE would bring many benefits. It is expected that the higher the level of CE, the lower the level of career indecision [43]. High-school students who exhibit more CE behavior also tend to be more concentrated toward achievement goals [15]. CE is also negatively related to career anxiety; to avoid an increase in career anxiety, anxious students should explore their career environment more [17]. A positive relationship was found between CE and career adaptability, including the four elements of career concern, career curiosity, career confidence, and career control [44]: (i) CE activities could help individuals develop abilities to gather useful information in a different situation, thereby positively affecting career curiosity; (ii) CE helps individuals focus on their future careers, thereby promoting career concern; (iii) the information collected during CE can be used to make mature career decisions, thereby enhancing career control; and (iv) CE involves multiple career tasks, thereby providing chances for individuals to improve their career skills and confidence. In summary, encouraging high-school students to exhibit more CE behavior would help their sustainable career development in the long run [45].
Previous studies found gender differences in CE, with most findings showing that males had a significantly higher CE level than females [46,47]. However, few studies examined school setting differences. Meanwhile, CE was found to be associated with family socioeconomic status (SES), with students with higher SES having a higher CE level [48]. The present study is the first to investigate gender and school differences in CE among Chinese high-school students.
Hypothesis 2a.
Male high-school students would score significantly higher than would female high-school students in CE.
Hypothesis 2b.
Urban school students would score significantly higher than rural school students in CE.

2.3. Relationship between CDMSE and CE

Numerous studies have indicated a positive relationship between CDMSE and CE. For instance, Chiesa et al. recruited 280 Italian high-school students, and the results indicated that CE was positively related to CDMSE [34]. However, the relationship between CDMSE and CE has yet to attract the attention of Chinese career researchers and educators. Therefore, the present study also concentrates on the relationship between CDMSE and CE among Chinese high-school students. In the field of vocational psychology, gender is often studied as a moderator. For example, gender has a moderating effect on parenting styles and CDMSE [49,50]. It also has a moderating effect on the relationship between thinking style and CDMSE [51]. Although the moderating effect of gender on the relationship between CDMSE and CE is worth investigating, no study has done so. Based on the literature review, the study formed another three hypotheses.
Hypothesis 3.
CDMSE would positively predict CE.
Hypothesis 4.
School would moderate the relationship between CDMSE and CE.
Hypothesis 5.
Gender would moderate the relationship between CDMSE and CE.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Participants and Procedure

All participants were freshmen from 13 different high schools (10th-grade students) in Jiangsu Province, China. Six of the schools were in rural settings and seven were urban. The participants were recruited based on the following reasons. First, high-school students are in the CE stage, when they have various career-related tasks to complete. Second, the principles of these 13 high schools considered career education as necessary for students to develop careers and were interested in designing a native career-education system. From January 2019 to January 2021, when the first semester of the 10th grade ended, students in these schools were asked to voluntarily fill the questionnaires via a website link that the researchers set. Participants were informed that the data were collected only for scientific research and that their answers and personal information would be kept strictly confidential. Specifically, we used an anonymous survey to ensure the accuracy of the responses, and using an anonymous survey could reduce the effect of common-method variance [52]. The data with a response time of less than 10 min were removed. Ethical approval to conduct the investigation was granted by the authors’ departmental ethics committee.
Finally, 24,273 students (Mage = 15.27, SD = 0.34) were recruited in the present study. Of the entire sample, there were 5357 participants in 2019 (22.07%), 9133 in 2020 (37.87%), and 9783 in 2021 (40.30%); 15,050 participants were male (62.00%) and 9223 were female (38.00%); 12,327 (50.78%) participants studied in urban schools, and 11,946 (49.21%) studied in rural schools.

3.2. Instruments

3.2.1. Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale—Short Form

The Career Decision-making Self-efficacy Scale—Short Form (CDMSE-SF) was designed to assess individuals’ confidence in their ability to make appropriate decisions related to their career development [53]. CDMSE-SF was revised into a Chinese version by two bilingual academics with doctoral degrees using a blind translation-back-translation method, and the internal reliability coefficient for Chinese CDMSE-SF was 0.88 [54]. The Chinese CDMSE-SF was administrated in the present study (the details of Chinese CDMSE-SF can be seen in Appendix A Table A1), and it contains 25 items related to 5 subscales: (i) self-appraisal, (ii) gathering information, (iii) goal selection, (iv) planning, and (v) problem-solving. Sample items include, “Make a plan for your goals for the next five years” and “How confident are you that you could determine what your ideal job would be”. The participants were asked to rate the items using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (no confidence at all) to 5 (complete confidence). Higher scores indicated higher confidence in career decision-making. In the present study, the coefficient of internal consistency for each subscale ranged from 0.871 to 0.923, that for the whole scale was 0.914, and the correlations between all subscales ranged from 0.479 to 0.658 (p < 0.001).

3.2.2. Career Exploration Survey

The Career Exploration Survey (CES) was designed to assess individuals’ engagement in CE activities [55]. The survey was revised into a Chinese version, it was translated from the original English version by two Chinese master degree students with good English using a blind translation-back-translation method, the coefficient of internal consistency of the Chinese CE was 0.87, and the Confirmative Factor Analysis results supported the goodness-of-fit of construct validity was acceptable [56]. The Chinese CES was used in the present study (the details of Chinese CES can be seen in Appendix A Table A2), it consists of five items on self-exploration and six items on environmental exploration. Sample items include, “To what extent have you behaved in obtaining information on specific jobs or companies over the last three months” and “To what extent have you reflected on how your past integrates with your future career in the last three months”. The participants were asked to rate the items using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (does not apply) to 5 (fully applies). Higher scores indicated the more frequent exploration done by participants. In the present study, the coefficients of internal consistency for the self-exploration and environmental exploration scales were 0.846 and 0.813, respectively, and for the whole CES was 0.871. The correlation between the self-exploration and environmental exploration scales was 0.463 (p < 0.001).

3.3. Data Analysis

This study used SmartPLS (SmartPLS GmbH, Boenningstedt, Germany) and SPSS 23.0 (IBM, New York, NY, USA) to analyze all the data. First, SmartPLS was used to address the impact of common-method variance [57]. SPSS 23.0 was used to obtain descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, significance test of difference, and regression analysis among various variables; it was also used to analyze the reliability of the two measurements. SPSS Process was also used to test whether school and gender moderated the relationship between CDMSE and CE [58].

4. Results

4.1. Common-Method Variance Testing

Although we used an anonymous survey to avoid the impact of common-method variance, a negative impact may still exist. Partial least squares (PLS) can be used to address the issue of common-method variance. In the present study, we loaded all 36 items (25 from CDMSE-SF and 11 from CES) on the corresponding latent constructs, and the convergent validity was investigated via the average variance extracted (AVE). Table 1 gives the main PLS results. The values of AVE are higher than the critical value of 50%, meaning that the latent variables in the present model explained on average more than 50% of the variances of the corresponding indicators; and all the values of loading are higher than 0.50. Therefore, there was no significant effect of common-method variance in the present study.

4.2. Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Significance Test of Difference

The descriptive statistics and correlations among CDMSE and CE are given in Table 2. The skewness and kurtosis of all the variables range from −1 to 1, and the Shapiro–Wilk test was not significant (p > 0.05); therefore, we have not violated the statistical assumption of normality [59]. Regarding CDMSE scores, participants scored highest on problem-solving (M = 3.736, SD = 0.660) and lowest on gathering information (M = 3.178, SD = 0.835). All five CDMSE dimensions were positively correlated with each other (p < 0.001). Regarding participants’ CE scores, participants performed better in self-exploration (M = 3.793, SD = 0.522) than in environmental exploration (M = 2.915, SD = 0.448), and self-exploration was positively correlated with environmental exploration (r = 0.463, p < 0.001). CE was positively correlated with CDMSE (r = 0.508, p < 0.001).
The independent-samples t-test was used to explore the gender differences and school differences among all variables, and the Cohen’s d and effect size were also calculated [60]. Results indicated that gender differences were found for all the variables (see Table 3). Male students scored significantly higher than female students in the CDMSE and CE, supporting Hypotheses 1a and 2a.
School differences were also found in all variables (see Table 4). Participants from urban schools performed better than participants from rural schools in CDMSE and CE. Therefore, Hypothesis 2a was proved, but Hypothesis 2b was not supported.

4.3. Hierarchical Regression Analysis

This study separately tested the moderating roles of school and gender between CDMSE and CE. The results of hierarchical regression analysis are given in Table 5. Model 1 was the relationship between CDMSE and CE moderated by school. In step 1, CE was regressed on CDMSE and school (0 = urban school, 1 = rural school); in step 2, the interaction term of CDMSE multiplying school was entered into the regression model. The results indicated that the interaction effect of CDMSE and school was significant (β = −0.02, p < 0.001), and the adjusted R-square was significant (ΔR2 = 0.50, p < 0.001). The moderating role of school was examined. Model 2 was the relationship between CDMSE and CE moderated by gender. In step 1, CE was regressed on CDMSE and gender (0 = male, 1 = female); in step 2, the interaction term of CDMSE multiplying gender was entered into the regression model. However, the moderating role of gender was not significant (β = 0.00, p > 0.05). In summary, Hypotheses 3 and 4 were confirmed, but Hypothesis 5 was not supported.
Figure 1 shows the moderating effect of school on the relationship between CDMSE and CE. For students from urban schools, the changes in the relationship between CDMSE and CE were weaker than the changes for the students from rural schools.

5. Discussion

5.1. Gender Difference in Career Exploration and Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy

In the present study, gender differences were found in all the variables. Regarding CDMSE, male high-school students scored significantly higher than female students in all subscales and the total scale of CDMSE-SF, suggesting that male high-school students are more confident in career decision-making than female students. The same results were also found in previous studies. Brew and Ngman-Wara investigated 273 senior high-school students from three schools, and the results indicated that male students had a higher CDMSE level [61]. Mau explained that in an Asian context, females have lower social status than males, and females are at a general disadvantage in making decisions, and also lack confidence in making career decisions [62]. Additionally, from the perspective of personality traits, male students’ personality traits were relatively stable and extraverted, which lead male students more positive and nimble in career-related activities, whereas female students’ personality traits were comparably unstable and introverted, which lead female students more negative and lacking in confidence in the process of career decision-making [63].
Regarding CE, male students also scored significantly higher, meaning that male high-school students engaged more in CE activities. The same findings were obtained in several other studies. Salim and Preston conducted surveys among 824 high-school students and found that boys scored significantly higher in CE than did girls [46]. An and Lee found that males recorded significantly higher scores in CE than did females [47]. It was shown that male students perceived more career barriers and less social support [64,65], therefore male students must engage more in CE to reduce career barriers and to search for more social support. Identifying gender differences in the CDMSE and CE of Chinese high-school students suggests the necessity and importance of developing specific career education depending on gender.

5.2. School Difference in Career Exploration and Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy

In the present study, comparing CDMSE among different schools revealed that the CDMSE of urban high-school students was significantly higher than that of rural students. This finding is consistent with previous studies [63,66]. Based on SCCT, some contextual factors and experiential factors would impact the formation of CDMSE. Compared with rural school students, their urban peers have more advantages in perceived social support, family socioeconomic status, educational resources, etc., which would lead to a higher level of CDMSE [67]. Students from rural areas often experience more unique barriers to successful career readiness, including a lack of school and community resources, postsecondary educational chances, employment options, and access to professional services [38]. This study also found that urban students had a significantly higher level in CE than rural school students. It was considered that students from urban schools had higher family SES than students from rural schools, and higher-SES students would perceive lower resource scarcity and in turn adopt more adaptive career behaviors such as CE [48]. For these reasons, career educators and researchers should consider the needs of rural school students and be mindful of the unique career behaviors of students from different backgrounds.

5.3. Relationship between Career Exploration and Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy

In the present study, a significant positive relationship between CE and CDMSE was found, and CDMSE was a significant predictor of CE among high-school students. Most previous studies reported similar results [61,68,69]. Furthermore, this study found that when students came from rural schools, the improvement of CE was more obvious, whereas when students came from urban schools, the improvement of CE was relatively small. This finding indicated that while enhancing CDMSE via some approaches, it seems that rural school students are more likely to improve CE. Some factors other than CDMSE probably affect CE, such as personality traits, anxiety, career barriers, future time perspective, and some external factors [70]. However, the moderating effect of gender was not found on the relationship between CDMSE and CE. The results of the independent-samples t-test indicated that male students had higher scores in CDMSE and CE than female students, the improvement of CE was the same regardless of male or female. Although male students and female students may have different career barriers or social support in the process of career decision-making, all students share the similar attitude and belief to develop a sustainable career [71]; therefore, while career interventions were delivered to all the high school students to strengthen their CDMSE, the level of CE of both male students and female students would be increased by the same level.

5.4. Implications for Practice

The present study yielded four main results: (i) male high-school students performed better in CDMSE and CE than female students, (ii) students from urban schools had a higher level of CDMSE and engaged more in CE compared to students from rural schools, (iii) CDMSE was a significant predictor of CE, and (iv) school played a moderating role in the relationship between CDMSE and CE. Based on these findings, this study makes several suggestions to further promote CE and career sustainability of Chinese high-school students.
Promoting CDMSE is a possible way to strengthen CE. A meta-analysis indicated that a career intervention had positive effects in enhancing CDMSE [70], and efficient career interventions should include some basic features [72]: (i) individuals would gather more information about self and environment, (ii) individuals would gain expectations for achieving the career goals that they set, (iii) individuals would find more social support for their career development, and (iv) the intervention should have practical tools to assist individuals to navigate CE. Therefore, this study recommends that Chinese high schools provide professional and persistent career interventions for students. However, as mentioned in Section 1, Chinese high-school educators do not have much experience in developing career interventions for high-school students. What should they do? Given that CDMSE is a crucial predictor of various vocational outcomes, many career researchers and counselors have begun to investigate the antecedents of CDMSE to provide better career interventions for students. According to Lent, personal and contextual factors affect CDMSE in a complexly interactive way [13]. For instance, given that a proactive personality positively predicts CDMSE, career educators could explore high-school students’ difficulties in developing CDMSE by measuring this trait [26]. On the other hand, perceived support from influential and important people (e.g., family members) is likely to have more impact on CDMSE than other contextual factors, and this impact is more significant during adolescence [73]; therefore, it is essential to construct a bridge between high schools and parents, and high schools must strengthen parents’ awareness about their children’s sustainable career development rather than academic scores.
This study also suggests that career educators, counselors, and researchers should pay more attention to female and rural students. As the present results show, compared with male students, female high-school students more urgently need career interventions to build confidence in making mature career decisions and exhibit more CE behavior. Future career interventions should consider rural high school and urban high school students’ unique demands and difficulties in the career development process to ensure the career sustainability under the boundaryless and protean career orientation [74]. These suggestions could be adapted to female high school students.

5.5. Limitations and Future Research Design

Notwithstanding the various findings and practical suggestions described above, the present study still has some limitations. First, it used a cross-sectional design that could not causally explain the relationships among all the variables. Future research should adopt a longitudinal design to test the relationship between CDMSE and CE [75]. Second, the participants in the present study were all from Jiangsu, China. However, culture may impact the relationships among such variables [76], so the results may not be generalized to a Western cultural environment. For example, Chinese students were more likely to take advice from significant others, while American students preferred making career-related decisions by themselves [77]; the effect of emotional intelligence on CDMSE was also found to be greater among Chinese students than South Korean students [36]. Future research should recruit students from a variety of cultural backgrounds. Moreover, other variables such as contextual indicators could also be tested as moderators [26]. Future research should consider other moderators in the relationship between CDMSE and CE.

6. Conclusions

The results of the present study demonstrate that it is important and necessary to investigate the status of CDMSE and CE among Chinese high-school students and assess the relationship between these two variables. To further promote high-school students’ CE, high schools should provide career education to improve students’ CDMSE. Career educators and counselors must also pay more attention to the career development of females and rural high-school students. Additionally, future research could explore other career-related factors that may affect the CDMSE and CE of high-school students.

Author Contributions

S.C. was PI for the project; X.G., H.C. and H.L. collected the data. S.C. and H.C. did the statistical analyses; S.C. and X.G. interpreted the outcomes and wrote the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Jiangsu Province University’s Advantageous Discipline Construction Project, grant number “PAPD”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Nanjing Normal University.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author. Restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for this study. Data are available from the authors with the permission of Nanjing Normal University.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank S.W. (working in Fu Jen Catholic University) for his great support in data analysis and M.T. (working in University of Cincinnati) for her great support in writing revision.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Career Decision-Making Self-efficacy Scale—Short Form.
Table A1. Career Decision-Making Self-efficacy Scale—Short Form.
No.Items
1Change majors if you did not like your first choice.
2Change occupations if you are not satisfied with the one you enter.
3Identity some major or career alternatives if you are unable to get your first choice.
4Find information about graduate or professional schools.
5Determine steps to take if you are having academic trouble with your major
……
21Select one major from a list you are considering.
22Determine the kind of information about occupation that interest you.
23Use the internet to find information about occupation that interest you.
24Talk with a person already employed in a field you are interested in.
25Decide what you value most in an occupation.
Table
Table A2. Career Exploration Survey.
Table A2. Career Exploration Survey.
No.Items
Environmental Exploration:
To what extent have you behaved in the following ways over the last 3 months?
1Investigated career possibilities.
2Went to various career orientation programs.
3Obtained information on specific jobs or companies.
4Initiated conversations with knowledge individuals in my career area.
5Obtained information on the labor market and general job opportunities in my career area.
6Sought information on specific areas of career interest.
Self-Exploration:
To what extend have you done the following in the past 3 months?
1Reflected on how my past integrates with my future career.
2Focused my thoughts on me as a person.
3Contemplated my past.
4Been retrospective in thinking about my career.
5Understood a new relevance of past behavior for my future career.

References

  1. Van der Heijden, B.I.; De Vos, A. Sustainable careers: Introductory chapter. Handb. Res. Sustain. Careers 2015, c496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Li, Y.; Li, X.; Chen, Q.; Xue, Y. Sustainable career development of newly hired executives-A dynamic process perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Kiani, A.; Liu, J.; Ghani, U.; Popelnukha, A. Impact of future time perspective on entrepreneurial career intention for individual sustainable career development: The roles of learning orientation and entrepreneurial passion. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Di Fabio, A. The psychology of sustainability and sustainable development for well-being in organizations. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Di Fabio, A.; Tsuda, A. The psychology of Harmony and Harmonization: Advancing the perspectives for the psychology of sustainability and sustainable development. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Wang, J.; Fan, W.; Cheung, F.M.; Wang, Q.; Li, M. Personality and Chinese adolescents’ career exploration: The mediation effects of self-efficacy and perceived parental support. J. Pacific Rim Psychol. 2019, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Guan, Y.; Wang, F.; Liu, H.; Ji, Y.; Jia, X.; Fang, Z.; Li, Y.; Hua, H.; Li, C. Career-specific parental behaviors, career exploration and career adaptability: A three-wave investigation among Chinese undergraduates. J. Vocat. Behav. 2015, 86, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Hite, L.M.; McDonald, K.S. Careers after COVID-19: Challenges and changes. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 2020, 427–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Fan, W.; Leong, F.T.L. Introduction to the Special Issue: Career Development and Intervention in Chinese Contexts. Career Dev. Q. 2016, 64, 192–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wendling, E.; Sagas, M. An Application of the Social Cognitive Career Theory Model of Career Self-Management to College Athletes’ Career Planning for Life After Sport. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Aka, E.I. Investigating the Change in Career Decision Making Self-Efficacy Levels of University Students. Int. J. Curric. Instr. 2020, 12, 310–326. [Google Scholar]
  12. Pordelan, N.; Sadeghi, A.; Abedi, M.R.; Kaedi, M. Promoting student career decision-making self-efficacy: An online intervention. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2020, 25, 985–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Penn, L.T.; Lent, R.W. The Joint Roles of Career Decision Self-Efficacy and Personality Traits in the Prediction of Career Decidedness and Decisional Difficulty. J. Career Assess. 2019, 27, 457–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Xing, X.; Rojewski, J. Family Influences on Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy of Chinese Secondary Vocational Students. New Waves-Educational Res. Dev. J. 2018, 21, 48–67. [Google Scholar]
  15. Jiang, Z.; Newman, A.; Le, H.; Presbitero, A.; Zheng, C. Career exploration: A review and future research agenda. J. Vocat. Behav. 2019, 110, 338–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chan, C.C. The relationship among social support, career self-efficacy, career exploration, and career choices of Taiwanese college athletes. J. Hosp. Leis. Sport Tour. Educ. 2018, 22, 105–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Vignoli, E. Career indecision and career exploration among older French adolescents: The specific role of general trait anxiety and future school and career anxiety. J. Vocat. Behav. 2015, 89, 182–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Batool, S.S.; Ghayas, S. Process of career identity formation among adolescents: Components and factors. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. van der Horst, A.C.; Klehe, U.C. Enhancing career adaptive responses among experienced employees: A mid-career intervention. J. Vocat. Behav. 2019, 111, 91–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. El-Hassan, K.; Ghalayini, N. Parental attachment bonds, dysfunctional career thoughts and career exploration as predictors of career decision-making self-efficacy of Grade 11 students. Br. J. Guid. Couns. 2020, 48, 597–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yusoff, N.R.B.N.; Mahfar, M.B.; Saud, M.S. Bin A review of social career cognitive theory (SCCT) for career decision self-efficacy (CDSE). Int. J. Eng. Adv. Technol. 2019, 8, 808–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Flores, L.Y.; Navarro, R.L.; Ali, S.R. The State of SCCT Research in Relation to Social Class: Future Directions. J. Career Assess. 2017, 25, 6–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Brown, S.D.; Lent, R.W. Social Cognitive Career Theory in a Diverse World: Closing Thoughts. J. Career Assess. 2017, 25, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sheu, H.B.; Bordon, J.J. SCCT Research in the International Context: Empirical Evidence, Future Directions, and Practical Implications. J. Career Assess. 2017, 25, 58–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Brown, S.D.; Lent, R.W. A Social Cognitive View of Career Development and Guidance. In International Handbook of Career Guidance; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 147–166. [Google Scholar]
  26. Xin, L.; Tang, F.; Li, M.; Zhou, W. From school to work: Improving graduates’ career decision-making self-efficacy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Abdinoor, N.M. Socio-Economic Status, Career Decision-Making Self-Efficay, Career Maturity and Gender with Secondary School Students in Northern Kenya Noor Mohamed Abdinoor. Int. J. Multidiscip. Curr. Educ. Res. 2020, 2, 160–167. [Google Scholar]
  28. Doo, M.Y.; Park, S.H. Effects of work value orientation and academic major satisfaction on career decision-making self-efficacy. High. Educ. Ski. Work. Learn. 2019, 9, 550–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kvasková, L.; Almenara, C.A. Time Perspective and Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy: A Longitudinal Examination among Young Adult Students. J. Career Dev. 2021, 48, 229–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Choi, B.Y.; Park, H.; Yang, E.; Lee, S.K.; Lee, Y.; Lee, S.M. Understanding Career Decision Self-Efficacy: A Meta-Analytic Approach. J. Career Dev. 2012, 39, 443–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hou, C.; Wu, Y.; Liu, Z. Career decision-making self-efficacy mediates the effect of social support on career adaptability: A longitudinal study. Soc. Behav. Pers. 2019, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bubic, A. The Relevance of Self-Evaluations for Students’ Career Optimism. J. Employ. Couns. 2017, 54, 100–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zhang, Y.C.; Zhou, N.; Cao, H.; Liang, Y.; Yu, S.; Li, J.; Deng, L.; Sun, R.; Wu, Q.; Li, P.; et al. Career-specific parenting practices and career decision-making self-efficacy among Chinese adolescents: The interactive effects of parenting practices and the mediating role of autonomy. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Chiesa, R.; Massei, F.; Guglielmi, D. Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Change in Italian High School Students. J. Couns. Dev. 2016, 94, 210–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gu, X.; Tang, M.; Chen, S.; Montgomery, M.L.T. Effects of a Career Course on Chinese High School Students’ Career Decision-Making Readiness. Career Dev. Q. 2020, 68, 222–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Jiang, Z. Emotional intelligence and career decision-making self-efficacy: National and gender differences. J. Employ. Couns. 2014, 51, 112–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kim, N.R.; Lee, K.H. The Effect of Internal Locus of Control on Career Adaptability: The Mediating Role of Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy and Occupational Engagement. J. Employ. Couns. 2018, 55, 2–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Anderson, S.; Brown, C. Self-efficacy as a determinant of career maturity in urban and rural high school seniors. J. Career Assess. 1997, 5, 305–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Brown, C.; Darden, E.E.; Shelton, M.L.; Dipoto, M.C. Career Exploration and Self-Efficacy of High School Students: Are There Urban/Suburban Differences? J. Career Assess. 1999, 7, 227–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cheung, R.; Jin, Q. Impact of a Career Exploration Course on Career Decision Making, Adaptability, and Relational Support in Hong Kong. J. Career Assess. 2016, 24, 481–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lau, P.L.; Chung, Y.B.; Wang, L. Effects of a Career Exploration Intervention on Students’ Career Maturity and Self-Concept. J. Career Dev. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Noack, P.; Kracke, B.; Gniewosz, B.; Dietrich, J. Parental and school effects on students’ occupational exploration: A longitudinal and multilevel analysis. J. Vocat. Behav. 2010, 77, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Paixão, O.; Gamboa, V. Autonomous Versus Controlled Motivation on Career Indecision: The Mediating Effect of Career Exploration. J. Career Dev. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cai, Z.; Guan, Y.; Li, H.; Shi, W.; Guo, K.; Liu, Y.; Li, Q.; Han, X.; Jiang, P.; Fang, Z.; et al. Self-esteem and proactive personality as predictors of future work self and career adaptability: An examination of mediating and moderating processes. J. Vocat. Behav. 2015, 86, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Silvianingsih, S.; Degeng, I.N.S.; Triyono, T.; Radjah, C.L. Utilizing Mind-Mapping to Foster Career Exploration of High School Students. J. Educ. Learn. Stud. 2019, 2, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Salim, R.M.A.; Preston, M. Parenting Styles Effect on Career Exploration Behavior in Adolescence: Considering Parents and Adolescent Gender. Humaniora 2019, 10, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. An, H.; Lee, S.-H. Career exploration behavior of Korean medical students. Korean J. Med. Educ. 2017, 29, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hu, S.; Hood, M.; Creed, P.A.; Shen, X. The Relationship Between Family Socioeconomic Status and Career Outcomes: A Life History Perspective. J. Career Dev. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Williams, K.E.; Ciarrochi, J. Perceived Parenting Styles and Values Development: A Longitudinal Study of Adolescents and Emerging Adults. J. Res. Adolesc. 2020, 30, 541–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Sovet, L.; Metz, A.J. Parenting styles and career decision-making among French and Korean adolescents. J. Vocat. Behav. 2014, 84, 345–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Situmorang, D.D.B.; Salim, R.M.A. Perceived parenting styles, thinking styles, and gender on the career decision self-efficacy of adolescents: How & why? Heliyon 2021, 7, e06430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Helm, R.; Conrad, D. The impact of customer-specific and market-related variables on the preference for highly innovative products. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2015, 9, 61–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Betz, N.E.; Klein, K.L.; Taylor, K.M. Evaluation of a short form of the career decision-making self-efficacy scale. J. Career Assess. 1996, 4, 47–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Creed, P.A.; Wong, O.Y.; Hood, M. Career decision-making, career barriers and occupational aspirations in Chinese adolescents. Int. J. Educ. Vocat. Guid. 2009, 9, 189–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Stumpf, S.A.; Colarelli, S.M.; Hartman, K. Development of the Career Exploration Survey (CES). J. Vocat. Behav. 1983, 22, 191–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Xu, H.; Hou, Z.J.; Tracey, T.J.G. Relation of Environmental and Self-Career Exploration With Career Decision-Making Difficulties in Chinese Students. J. Career Assess. 2014, 22, 654–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Leguina, A. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 2015, 38, 220–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. George, D.; Mallery, P. IBM SPSS Statistics Processes for PC. In IBM SPSS Statistics 26 Step by Step; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2020; pp. 8–25. [Google Scholar]
  59. Hanusz, Z.; Tarasińska, J. Normalization of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests of normality. Biometrical Lett. 2015, 52, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Lakens, D. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front. Psychol. 2013, 4, 863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Brew, M.; Ngman-Wara, E.I.D. Influence of Career Self-Efficacy on Career Exploration among Senior High School Students in Relation to Gender. Int. J. Multidiscip. Curr. Res. 2018, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mau, W. Cultural Differences in Career Decision-Making Styles and Self-Efficacy. J. Vocat. Behav. 2000, 378, 365–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Wu, S.; Zhang, K.; Zhou, S.; Chen, W. Personality and career decision-making self-efficacy of students from poor rural areas in China. Soc. Behav. Pers. 2020, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wu, M.C.; Wu, Y.P.; Wan, Y.P.; Zeng, Y.; Tang, X.R.; Wang, L.R. Effects of attribution retraining on the perceived career barriers of undergraduate nursing students. Int. J. Nurs. Sci. 2015, 2, 99–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Holloway-Friesen, H. Acculturation, Enculturation, Gender, and College Environment on Perceived Career Barriers Among Latino/a College Students. J. Career Dev. 2018, 45, 117–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Isaac, V.; Pit, S.W.; McLachlan, C.S. Self-efficacy reduces the impact of social isolation on medical student’s rural career intent. BMC Med. Educ. 2018, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Ulas-Kilic, O.; Peila-Shuster, J.J.; Demirtas-Zorbaz, S.; Kizildag, S. Career decision-making self-efficacy of young adolescent students in Turkey. Int. J. Sch. Educ. Psychol. 2020, 8, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lent, R.W.; Ezeofor, I.; Morrison, M.A.; Penn, L.T.; Ireland, G.W. Applying the social cognitive model of career self-management to career exploration and decision-making. J. Vocat. Behav. 2016, 93, 47–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ireland, G.W.; Lent, R.W. Career exploration and decision-making learning experiences: A test of the career self-management model. J. Vocat. Behav. 2018, 106, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Whiston, S.C.; Li, Y.; Goodrich Mitts, N.; Wright, L. Effectiveness of career choice interventions: A meta-analytic replication and extension. J. Vocat. Behav. 2017, 100, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hechtlinger, S.; Gati, I. Reducing dysfunctional career decision-making beliefs: Gender differences in the effectiveness of a group intervention. J. Couns. Psychol. 2019, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Clayton, K.; Wessel, R.D.; McAtee, J.; Knight, W.E. KEY Careers: Increasing Retention and Graduation Rates With Career Interventions. J. Career Dev. 2019, 46, 428–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hughes, A.N.; Gibbons, M.M. Understanding the Career Development of Underprepared College Students. J. Coll. Student Retent. Res. Theory Pract. 2018, 19, 452–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Cortellazzo, L.; Bonesso, S.; Gerli, F.; Batista-Foguet, J.M. Protean career orientation: Behavioral antecedents and employability outcomes. J. Vocat. Behav. 2020, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Galbraith, S.; Bowden, J.; Mander, A. Accelerated longitudinal designs: An overview of modelling, power, costs and handling missing data. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 2017, 26, 374–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Akosah-Twumasi, P.; Emeto, T.I.; Lindsay, D.; Tsey, K.; Malau-Aduli, B.S. A Systematic Review of Factors That Influence Youths Career Choices—the Role of Culture. Front. Educ. 2018, 3, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zhou, W.; Guan, Y.; Xin, L.; Mak, M.C.K.; Deng, Y. Career success criteria and locus of control as indicators of adaptive readiness in the career adaptation model. J. Vocat. Behav. 2016, 94, 124–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sustainability 13 07876 g001 550
Figure 1. Moderating effect of school on the relationship between career decision-making self-efficacy and career exploration.
Figure 1. Moderating effect of school on the relationship between career decision-making self-efficacy and career exploration.
Sustainability 13 07876 g001
Table
Table 1. Psychometrics of constructs.
Table 1. Psychometrics of constructs.
Number of ItemsLoading RangeAVE
CES110.675–0.8270.614
CDMSE-SF250.589–0.8340.576
VE = Average Variance Extracted; CDMSE = Career Decision-making Self-efficacy—Short Form; CES = Career Exploration Survey. Convergent validity: loading > 0.50 and AVE > 0.50.
Table
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among all variables (N = 24,273).
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among all variables (N = 24,273).
MSDSkewnessKurtosis12345678
1. SA3.6700.667−0.2030.516-
2. GI3.1780.8350.0340.0440.658 ***-
3. GS3.6250.653−0.1050.4070.643 ***0.606 ***-
4. P3.7140.703−0.2800.4290.657 ***0.624 ***0.638 ***-
5. PS3.7360.660−0.2410.2860.578 ***0.479 ***0.559 ***0.588 ***-
6. CDMSE17.9252.9080.0480.6510.753 ***0.734 ***0.727 ***0.749 ***0.765 ***-
7. SE3.7930.522−0.7020.8430.504 ***0.498 ***0.451 ***0.531 ***0.401 ***0.579 ***-
8. EE2.9150.448−0.032−0.3130.583 ***0.560 ***0.560 ***0.482 ***0.402 ***0.628 ***0.463 ***-
9. CE6.7080.879−0.2510.4560.540 ***0.522 ***0.598 ***0.586 ***0.468 ***0.508 ***0.709 ***0.796 ***
*** p < 0.001; CDMSE = Career Decision-making Self-efficacy; CE = Career Exploration; EE = environmental exploration; GI = Gathering Information; GS = Goal Selection; P = Planning; PS = Problem-solving; SA = Self-appraisal; SE = Self-exploration.
Table
Table 3. Gender differences in all variables.
Table 3. Gender differences in all variables.
VariableMale (n = 15,050)Female (n = 9223)tCohen’s dEffect Size
MSDMSD
Self-appraisal3.7200.6833.6000.63113.738 ***0.1760.088
Gathering Information3.2160.8633.1280.7848.871 ***0.1140.057
Goal Selection3.6680.6653.5610.63012.891 ***0.1650.082
Planning3.7580.7143.6480.68012.358 ***0.1590.079
Problem-Solving3.7880.6623.6640.64815.766 ***0.2020.101
CDMSE18.1472.98017.5652.75215.180 ***0.1950.097
Self-Exploration3.8050.5093.7740.5633.066 **0.0400.020
EE2.9410.4722.8730.4064.890 ***0.1540.077
Career Exploration6.7460.8196.6460.8104.783 ***0.1230.061
*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01; CDMSE = Career Decision-making Self-efficacy; EE = Environmental Exploration.
Table
Table 4. School differences in all variables.
Table 4. School differences in all variables.
VariableUrban School (n = 12,327)Rural School (n = 11,946)tCohen’s dEffect Size
MSDMSD
Self-Appraisal3.7230.6753.6170.65212.473 ***0.1600.080
Gathering Information3.1960.8623.1600.8063.371 ***0.0430.021
Goal Selection3.6670.6633.5820.64110.005 ***0.1280.064
Planning3.7580.7153.6690.6919.914 ***0.1270.063
Problem-Solving3.8100.6633.6610.64817.733 ***0.2280.113
CDMSE18.1542.95917.6892.83612.494 ***0.1600.080
Self-Exploration3.8330.5043.7530.5777.909 ***0.1020.050
EE2.9290.4732.9000.4222.185 *0.0300.014
Career Exploration6.7620.8176.6520.8385.141 ***0.0660.033
*** p < 0.001, * p < 0.05; CDMSE = Career Decision-making Self-efficacy; EE = Environmental Exploration.
Table
Table 5. Hierarchical regression analysis with CDMSE predicting CE (N = 24,273).
Table 5. Hierarchical regression analysis with CDMSE predicting CE (N = 24,273).
CE
βt95% CIΔR2
Model 1 (Moderator: School)
Step 1
CDMSE0.3855.66 ***[0.38, 0.39]
School0.074.81 ***[0.04, 0.09]
Step 2 0.50 ***
CDMSE × School−0.02−4.13 ***[−0.03, −0.01]
Model 2 (Moderator: Gender)
Step 1
CDMSE0.3955.79 ***[0.38, 0.39]
Gender0.128.39 ***[0.10, 0.15]
Step 2 0.00
CDMSE × Gender0.00−0.13[−0.10, 0.10]
*** p < 0.001; CDMSE = Career Decision-making Self-efficacy; CE = career exploration; CI = confidence interval.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, S.; Chen, H.; Ling, H.; Gu, X. How Do Students Become Good Workers? Investigating the Impact of Gender and School on the Relationship between Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy and Career Exploration. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7876. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147876

AMA Style

Chen S, Chen H, Ling H, Gu X. How Do Students Become Good Workers? Investigating the Impact of Gender and School on the Relationship between Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy and Career Exploration. Sustainability. 2021; 13(14):7876. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147876

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Shi, Huaruo Chen, Hairong Ling, and Xueying Gu. 2021. "How Do Students Become Good Workers? Investigating the Impact of Gender and School on the Relationship between Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy and Career Exploration" Sustainability 13, no. 14: 7876. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147876

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop