Implications for theory for the selection theory of interests, essay in VocationalPsychology.com

home > essays > interests > theory
The Selection of Interests:
Part 4
by Andrew D. Carson, Ph.D.

Implications for Theory

While the proposed theory suggests means of extending both theories of selection processes in development (Gazzaniga, 1992) and general theories of organism-environment interaction (see Wachs & Plomin, 1991), this theory has the most direct implications for current theories of vocational psychology and career development. In particular, the theory has implications for Holland's (1985a), Gottfredson's (1981), Mitchell and Krumboltz's (1991), and Lent, Brown, and Hackett's (1994) vocational theories. The selection theory of interests also appears to extend into the vocational sphere Maturana and Varela's (1980; see Mahoney, 1991, pp. 390-391) account of the role of autopoiesis (or self-creation) in human development.

The notion of interest precipitation in relation to differential critical periods for the different personal orientations may have implications for Holland's (1985a) conceptualizations of the structure of personal orientations (or vocational personality types). For example, Gati's (1979) hierarchical model of the structure of interests suggests greater degrees of affinity between types within each of three clusters (realistic/investigative, artistic/social, and enterprising/conventional). The concept of critical periods may permit a selection of one cluster at one time, followed later by a specialization of interests through the selection of one of the two remaining options as the "dominant" type. The structural patterning of personal orientations within a Boltzman diagram of interests (See Figure 1) may, however, be well modeled by Holland's (1985a) hexagonal structure of types, through mapping each of the orientations onto the circumference of a cylinder defining an interest space. A continuous line around the surface of the cylinder would define the Boltzman diagram representing, say, the relative strengths of an individual's potential interests in terms of Holland's personal orientations.

The selection theory may have implications for a number of other theories of career development that emphasize possible roles of critical periods (Gottfredson, 1981; Super, 1957, 1990; Vondracek, Lerner, & Schulenberg, 1986). In particular, Gottfredson's theory, which posits social-learning influences in the progressive circumscription of career aspirations, represents a clearly stated and fairly incompatible alternative to the selection theory (unless there exist biologically constrained critical periods for the selection of interests at precisely those junctions identified by Gottfredson). In either case, research bearing on Gottfredson's theory would have bearing on selection theory, and vice versa. It seems entirely plausible that most evidence generated in support of Gottfredson's developmental stage theory might be explained in terms of effortful self-presentation in order to better fit in, rather than as support for a true progressive restriction of aspirations or (sustainable) interests across development. At different ages, children are made aware of new criteria against which they are expected to fit in; those children who are relatively higher in self-monitoring, relatively lower in private self-consciousness, and who have not yet crystallized a particular sustainable interest pattern (i.e., for whom strong interests have not yet been selected) will be the most likely to fit Gottfredson's proposed developmental sequence of aspirations, at least in Western societies. However, Trice et al. (1995) report that from Kindergarten on, a match in interests (either specific or general) is cited by children as by far the most important reason for their occupational aspiration, running counter to Gottfredson's assumption that interests would tend to play the most restrictive role in adolescence. Also, in Trice et al.'s study no children at any age cited sex-appropriateness as the primary basis for their aspirations. Trice et al.'s data thus suggest that even if those children in their study in fact had based their selections on the developmental criteria cited by Gottfredson, they self-presented themselves to the investigators as not having done so. And if they could do that, why not further assume that this self-presentational capability regarding vocational aspirations and interests is fairly broad, even by age five or six? And if one assumes that, then all of Gottfredson's theory becomes suspect, for one would then need to tease apart self-presentation and effortful interests from selected ones.

In addition, there are the theorists who, as does Holland (1985a), acknowledge some role for genetics but really cast their lot with social learning. In particular, Mitchell and Krumboltz's (1991) social learning theory of career decision-making will, if the selection theory is correct, find its range of application modified. Exposure to relevant models of individuals engaged in particular work settings, or experience in activities constituting work samples (including, perhaps, some forms of play) might prove sufficient to trigger a potential interest into an actual one. Also, operant learning theory of the sort championed by Skinner (1987) may also provide new insights into the relationship between environmental "prods" and the selection of interests. In short, exposure to appropriate stimuli in (social) environments may be essential for the development of sustainable interests. It may also prove useful to consider some personality traits or styles as moderators of the degree to which such environmental stimuli may trigger interest selection. The assumption that learning may continue to play some role in the acquisition of effortful or false interests suggests vocational linkages for some mainstream personality theories, especially those related to the traits self-monitoring (Snyder, 1987) and private self-consciousness (Buss, 1980).

Perhaps most important within the class of theories that acknowledge the probable contributions of genetics on the development of interests and then effectively brush aside the importance of the data is Lent et al.'s (1994) recently proposed social cognitive theory of career development, which includes an account of the development of interests within individuals. They admit that there are indeed studies that suggest that there is a genetic source of influence on vocational interests (p. 105). They suggest that genes may influence the development of skills (via aptitudes), which may in turn interact with environmental resources, which may feed back to the person and affect the development of interests. Even so, Lent at al. acknowledge that they cannot "rule out the possibility that broad interest predispositions are inherited more directly" (p. 106), but they expect that the expression of such inherited qualities to be "modulated by contextual and environmental factors" (p. 106; cf., Lykken et al., 1993; Vondracek et al., 1986). Thus in many ways the proposed selection theory is in accord with Lent at al.'s assumptions, for the present theory likewise assumes that genes will affect the development of interests through interaction with the environment. However, the selection theory of interests assumes further that many of these contextual and environmental factors evolved in a reciprocal relationship with the gene-based potential interests; many of the social environment's actions may themselves be to a large degree constituted by genetically derived influences and patterns (and, yes, interests, perhaps along the line's of Holland's environment types). Environmental influences such as prenatal hormones are likely to be powerful influences on the selection of interest patterns in subsequent development, but Lent et al. downplay the importance of biological factors such as sex on career development. In fact, Lent et al. devote more space (pp. 104-105) to explaining why race and sex -- although at one level biological attributes -- are more important for their potential evocativeness within the social milieu, seemingly with the goal of emphasizing "those sociocultural agents that help shape the career development process" (p. 105). Of course, genes are not sociocultural agents.

Finally, the role of consciousness, self-organization, and responsibility for one's own selection of interests links the selection theory to some traditionally non-vocational theories, namely those related to autopoiesis or the self-organization of personality (see Mahoney, 1991; Maturana & Varela, 1980; Varela et al., 1991). The importance of incorporating subjective experience into theories of career development has been noted recently by several theorists (e.g., Bujold, 1990; Colin & Young, 1986). Of course, the much of the sort of self-organization referred to here would occur in childhood and adolescence, much earlier than the age of individuals who traditionally have received career interventions.

Part 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6