Contemporary Educational Psychology 37 (2012) 229–239

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Contemporary Educational Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cedpsych

Choosing a major in higher education: Profiles of students’ decision-making process

Veerle Germeijs a,⇑, Koen Luyckx a, Guy Notelaers b, Luc Goossens a, Karine Verschueren a
a
Department of Psychology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
b
Bergen Bullying Research Group, Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Norway

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study identified decision-making profiles of students who make a choice of a major in higher edu-
Available online 18 January 2012 cation. These profiles were examined in a sample of Belgian students at the end of Grade 12, when the
educational system expects that these adolescents choose a specific major. Using latent class cluster anal-
Keywords: ysis on adolescents’ scores for coping with career decisional tasks (i.e., orientation, exploration, decisional
Educational choice status, and commitment), four clusters were identified. As expected, these profiles paralleled Marcia’s
Decision-making profiles (1966) identity statuses (i.e., the achievement, moratorium, foreclosure, and diffusion status). Results
Higher education
provided support for the external validity of the identified clusters through differential associations with
Identity
several person variables (i.e., career decision-making self-efficacy, career choice anxiety, and decision-
making style) and with academic functioning in higher education (i.e., commitment, academic and social
adjustment). Implications for current educational research and research on career decision-making are
discussed.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Educational choices such as choosing a major can be considered

Each year many adolescents are confronted with the issue of
choosing a major in higher education. This educational decision
usually implies a complex decision-making process during which
adolescents are faced with decisional tasks or activities such as
exploring different alternatives, reflecting on interests and skills,
comparing suitable alternatives, and choosing one option. Most
school counselors would agree that adolescents who are con-
fronted with making the choice of a major may differ in the way
they deal with these decisional tasks. For example, some students
may be highly committed to their choice without having explored
several alternatives, whereas others may show high levels of
exploration but are still uncertain about their choice. Thus, differ-
ent groups of adolescents may exist that are characterized by dif-
ferent combinations of involvement in these decisional tasks
(Van Esbroeck, Tibos, & Zaman, 2005), each reflecting a different
way of approaching this educational decision. However, little re-
search has addressed the question of whether different decision-
making profiles empirically exist among adolescents. The main
purpose of the present study was to identify decision-making pro-
files of adolescents when choosing a specific major in higher
education.
⇑ Corresponding author. Fax: +32 16 326 144.
E-mail addresses: veerle.germeijs@psy.kuleuven.be (V. Germeijs), koen.luyckx@
psy.kuleuven.be (K. Luyckx), guy.notelaers@uib.no (G. Notelaers), luc.goossens@
psy.kuleuven.be (L. Goossens), karine.verschueren@psy.kuleuven.be
(K. Verschueren).
as important career-related decisions. Because adolescents’ ideas
about possible future careers develop while making such educa-
tional decisions, these choices can be seen as a means for imple-
menting occupational choices (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994) and
as an integral part of career development (Super, 1980). More spe-
cifically, within Super’s theory of career development (Super,
1980) educational choices can been seen as a mini-cycle (i.e., a
decision-making process) within the maxi-cycle of career develop-
ment: at the end of such a mini-cycle an individual has selected a
preferred plan of action (e.g., entering a major in higher education)
which in turn influences his or her career. By investigating adoles-
cents’ decision-making profiles with regard to choosing a major in
higher education, the current study aims to shed more light on the
ways adolescents address one such mini-cycle.
From a theoretical viewpoint, investigating adolescents’ profiles
of choosing a major may add to the conceptualization of how peo-
ple make career-related decisions. Specifically, it may help to
understand whether or not it is important to pay attention to all
decisional tasks advanced in career decision-making models. For
example, it has been hypothesized that a combination of being
highly committed to a career choice (i.e., being attached to, certain
and self-confident about career preferences and choices; Blustein,
Ellis, & Devenis, 1989) and having experienced a period of career
exploration (i.e., eliciting information about oneself and one’s envi-
ronment and how both interact; Jordaan, 1963) is more beneficial
than a combination of the same level of commitment and limited
exploration in terms of choice satisfaction, choice stability, and

0361-476X/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.12.002
230 V. Germeijs et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 37 (2012) 229–239
adjustment (Brisbin & Savickas, 1994). However, to our knowledge,
this hypothesis has not been tested yet.
From a practical viewpoint, educational guidance may also ben-
efit from the identification of these profiles because they may pro-
vide a parsimonious way of describing differences between
students’ educational decision-making processes. Such a parsimo-
nious description, in turn, facilitates communication among coun-
selors in educational settings. Insight into these profiles may also
guide students’ grouping for tailored assistance in their educa-
tional decision-making process (Distefano & Kamphaus, 2006). In
the current study, the identity formation literature and its linkages
with the career development literature are used as a guiding
framework for our hypotheses on the types of educational deci-
sion-making profiles that might emerge.
1.1. Identity formation and career decision-making
In personal identity research, the distinction between different
types of dealing with personally relevant decisions has received a
lot of attention. Personal identity formation involves defining who
you are, what your goals and values are, and which directions you
choose to pursue in life. In Marcia’s (1966) identity status paradigm,
which is one of the most important models for research on personal
identity formation, adolescent identity development is viewed as a
series of crises during which decisions in identity-relevant domains
have to be made. Marcia (1966) mainly focused on individual
differences in the way these decisions are made. More specifically,
he distinguished among four different identity statuses, based on
combining high and/or low scores on the dimensions of identity
exploration (i.e., active consideration of potential alternative sets
of goals, values, and beliefs) and commitment (i.e., attaining a clear
sense of self-definition and adhering to choices in identity-relevant
domains). These statuses are referred to as achievement (high
exploration, high commitment), foreclosure (low exploration, high
commitment), moratorium (high exploration, low commitment),
and diffusion (low exploration, low commitment).
One important life domains for personal identity formation is
the career domain (Grotevant, 1987; Marcia, 1966), in which
exploration and commitment are also conceptualized as key com-
ponents for (career) development (Jordaan, 1963; Super, 1980). Ca-
reer identity (also referred to as vocational or occupational
identity; Skorikov & Vondracek, 2011) is regarded as a core compo-
nent of one’s overall sense of identity, being not only important for
choices in the career domain, but also for giving meaning and
structure to a person’s life (Kroger, Martinussen, & Marcia, 2010;
Skorikov & Vondracek, 1998). Indeed, in several studies, support
has been found for a positive relationship between vocational iden-
tity, career development, career exploration and commitment on
the one hand and identity statuses on the other (e.g., Blustein,
Devenis, & Kidney, 1989; Savickas, 1985; Vondracek, Schulenberg,
Skorikov, Gillespie, & Wahlheim, 1995).
In more recent identity models, authors tried to ‘‘unpack’’ the
dimensions of exploration and commitment into a set of more spe-
cific processes. This trend towards more process-oriented models
is also observed in the career development literature where
authors have emphasized additional dimensions within career
exploration and commitment. With regard to commitment, recent
identity models that build on Marcia’s work emphasize that com-
mitment has different components to it (Bosma & Kunnen, 2001),
such as the making of commitments and feeling certain about
these commitments (Luyckx, Goossens, & Soenens, 2006). With re-
gard to exploration, both the identity literature (Luyckx et al.,
2006) and the career development literature (Flum & Blustein,
2000; Porfeli & Skorikov, 2010) state that it is important to distin-
guish between broad or general exploration and more detailed or
in-depth exploration. In the career domain, broad exploration re-
fers to learning generally about the self and possible careers,
whereas in-depth exploration refers to learning about a reduced
set of career alternatives that are more aligned with the self
(Porfeli & Skorikov, 2010). In line with these newer models, the
current study also relied on an elaborate set of dimensions (i.e.,
decisional tasks) to characterize students’ approach to deciding
on a major.
1.2. Career decisional tasks
To identify adolescents’ educational decision-making profiles in
the current study, six dimensions or decisional tasks were used,
which are considered core aspects of the career decision-making
process at the micro-level (Germeijs & Verschueren, 2006). More
specifically, we aimed to identify different intra-individual combi-
nations of the following six decisional tasks: (a) orientation (i.e.,
awareness of the need to make a decision and motivation to en-
gage in the career decision-making process), (b) self-exploration
(i.e., gathering information about one’s characteristics, including
one’s interests, values, and abilities), (c) broad exploration of the
environment (i.e., gathering general information about career
alternatives), (d) in-depth exploration of the environment (i.e.,
gathering detailed information about a reduced set of career alter-
natives), (e) decisional status (i.e., progress in choosing an alterna-
tive), and (f) commitment (i.e., strength of confidence in,
attachment to, and identification with a particular career alterna-
tive). With regard to adolescents’ process of choosing a major in
higher education, support was found for the distinctiveness of
these six career decisional tasks (Germeijs & Verschueren, 2006).
The present study uses these six tasks, which allows for a
differentiated view on possible types of adolescents. The career
decisional tasks of environmental (i.e., broad or in-depth) and
self-exploration can be seen as equivalent to further refinements
of Marcia’s exploration dimension and correspond with the
refinements made in current identity and career decision-making
research (e.g., Porfeli & Skorikov, 2010). The distinction between
decisional status and commitment made in the present study
nicely maps onto the distinction between commitment-making
and identification with commitment in the current personal
identity literature (e.g., Luyckx et al., 2006).
In the country where the present study was conducted (i.e.,
Belgium) students follow a major from the first year in higher
education on. Hence, the educational system and the societal
context expect from these adolescents to choose a specific major
by the end of high school. Because these environmental expecta-
tions may encourage adolescents to work on the decisional tasks
as they move towards the end of high school (Grotevant, 1987;
Kalakoski & Nurmi, 1998), adolescents’ decision-making profiles
are studied at the end of Grade 12.
1.3. Career decision-making profiles
Our review of the literature on career decision-making yielded
nine studies in which different career decision-making types or pro-
files were identified through the use of cluster analysis (Callanan &
Greenhaus, 1992; Chartrand et al., 1994; Kelly & Pulver, 2003;
Larson, Heppner, Ham, & Dugan, 1988; Lucas, 1993; Lucas &
Epperson, 1990; Rojewski, 1994; Savickas & Jarjoura, 1991;
Wanberg & Muchinsky, 1992). Cluster analytic techniques group
persons in relatively homogeneous clusters based on multivariate
observations in such a way that persons assigned to the same cluster
have more in common than persons assigned to different clusters
(Gore, 2000). Three profiles emerged regularly across studies (Kelly
& Pulver, 2003): the chronically indecisive type (i.e., no or low
commitment to a career choice, high need for career information,
and much negative affect), the developmentally undecided type
 V. Germeijs et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 37 (2012) 229–239
(i.e., no or low commitment to a career choice, high need for career
information, and little negative affect), and the decided or ready to
decide type (i.e., little career indecision or being decided upon a ca-
reer, low need for self- or career information, and little negative
affect).
In some studies, not all of these three types could be identified
and/or additional profiles emerged. This may be due to the differ-
ent sets of decisional variables and person characteristics used in
the cluster analyses but also to the different samples used in the
respective studies (Brown & Rector, 2008). For example, some
studies used a general high school sample (e.g., Rojewski, 1994),
whereas others selected samples from a general college population
(e.g., Wanberg & Muchinsky, 1992). It is clear that the participants
in these samples were in different developmental stages and, as a
consequence, experienced different socio-cultural expectations
regarding their preparation for a career. These differences may ex-
plain why some studies could identify, for example, a ‘confident
decided type’ (Wanberg & Muchinsky, 1992), whereas others only
identified a ‘tentatively decided’ type (Rojewski, 1994).
Typical of the studies on career decision-making types is that
they focused mostly on career decision-making at a general or
macro level and not on a [specific mini-cycle or] decision-making
process at the micro-level. By using more general measures of ca-
reer (in)decision (e.g., Career Decision Scale, Osipow, 1987) these
studies could examine approaches to career decision-making at a
macro level (e.g., the future career) rather than the micro-level
(e.g., the choice of a major or the choice of a job). Second, in the
case that measures regarding decisional tasks were used, only
some of the six central career decisional tasks were included. Third,
many of these studies used career decisional as well as person
variables (e.g., anxiety, self-esteem) to characterize the decision-
making type. However, researchers have suggested that the pro-
files be based on career decisional variables only (Chartrand
et al., 1994). The person characteristics should rather be used to
examine the external validity of the identified career decision-
making profiles. The latter strategy, which is used in the current
study, would allow for more straightforward conclusions about
decision-making profiles without possible confounding influences
from other related variables (Chartrand et al., 1994).
When comparing Marcia’s (1966) four identity statuses with the
career decision-making profiles that emerged across different stud-
ies, it seems that the ‘decided’ or ‘ready to decide’ type corresponds
most with the achievement status and the ‘chronically indecisive’
type with the diffusion status. The ‘developmentally undecided’
type, and similar types described in the career decision literature,
such as ‘the undecided student who was exploring self and occupa-
tions’ (Savickas & Jarjoura, 1991), seem to correspond with the mor-
atorium status in the identity literature. However, no career
decision-making profile has been identified empirically which
resembles the foreclosure status. This is in line with the results of
Brisbin and Savickas (1994) who found that the most widely used
measures of career indecision do not measure foreclosure.
Because specific educational choices can be seen as activities that
help to shape the process of constructing one’s career identity
(Skorikov & Vondracek, 2011), in the current study the choice of a
major in higher education is considered as an identity-relevant
choice or as a micro-process in adolescents’ career identity develop-
ment. Therefore, we studied whether educational decision-making
profiles at the micro-level would parallel the four identity statuses
in broader life domains (e.g., the career domain) or at the general
level.
1.4. Four educational decision-making profiles at the micro-level
In the current study, we expected that cluster analysis would
reveal at least four educational decision-making profiles among
231
high school students which are similar to the four identity statuses.
First and parallel to the achievement status, one profile would be
characterized by high environmental (i.e., broad or in depth) and
self-exploration and high scores on decisional status. Based on
the positive relationship between personal growth (i.e., active
engagement in the change process of personal growth) and iden-
tity (Robitschek & Cook, 1999), students in this profile are expected
to show high scores on orientation regarding making the educa-
tional choice. Finally, because the achievement status has been
characterized by high identification with the choices made
(Luyckx, Goossens, Soenens, Beyers, & Vansteenkiste, 2005), it is
expected that students in this first profile score high on commit-
ment with the educational choice. Second, the profile parallel to
the foreclosed status would be characterized by low environmental
(i.e., broad or in-depth) and self-exploration and high scores on
decisional status and commitment to their educational choice
(Luyckx et al., 2005). As students in this profile make little effort
for exploration, we hypothesize that these students are less moti-
vated to engage in the decision-making process than the achieved
individuals and thus would score substantially lower on orienta-
tion. In contrast to existing studies that were not able to identify
a foreclosed career decision-making profile, we expect to find a
profile parallel to the foreclosed status by using a more differenti-
ated set of decisional tasks. Third and parallel to the moratorium
status (Marcia, 1980), we expect to find a profile characterized
by high environmental (i.e., broad or in-depth) and self-exploration
but low decisional status and commitment. Because these students
show engagement in the career decision-making process through
exploratory behavior, it is expected that this profile is character-
ized by moderate to moderately high orientation scores. Fourth
and finally, the profile parallel to the diffusion status would be
characterized by low scores on all decisional tasks (Luyckx et al.,
2005; Robitschek & Cook, 1999).
In addition, the external validity of the profiles derived was
tested by examining whether individuals in the different profile
groups differ as expected on several person variables (i.e., career
decision-making self-efficacy, career choice anxiety, and deci-
sion-making style), and on academic functioning in higher educa-
tion (i.e., commitment, academic, and social adjustment).
1.5. Personal correlates of educational decision-making profiles
Person variables that have been used frequently in previous re-
search to differentiate between different career decision-making
profiles are feelings of anxiety (i.e., trait anxiety or decision-mak-
ing anxiety) and beliefs regarding the self (e.g., Chartrand et al.,
1994; Kelly & Pulver, 2003; Wanberg & Muchinsky, 1992). In iden-
tity research, anxiety and self-beliefs also discriminated well
among the identity statuses. Specifically, the two low-commitment
statuses (i.e., diffusion and moratorium) have been found to show
higher anxiety and more negative self-beliefs than the high-com-
mitment statuses (i.e., foreclosure and achievement) (Kroger,
2003; Luyckx et al., 2008; Marcia, 1980). Therefore, in the current
study, we examined the external validity of the educational deci-
sion-making profiles obtained by investigating the associations
with anxiety and self-beliefs. Because associations with profiles
in the domain of career decision-making are examined, domain-
specific variables were chosen (Goossens, 2001). More specifically,
we used measures of anxiety feelings related to the career deci-
sion-making process (i.e., career choice anxiety) and self-efficacy
beliefs concerning the ability to complete tasks necessary for mak-
ing a career decision (i.e., career decision-making self-efficacy).
In addition to career choice anxiety and career decision-making
self-efficacy, the degree to which adolescents use a rational deci-
sion-making style was used to externally validate the educational
decision-making profiles obtained. People who use a rational
232 V. Germeijs et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 37 (2012) 229–239
decision-making style actively seek information and make deci-
sions deliberately and logically (Buck & Daniels, 1985). Persons in
the achievement and moratorium statuses tend to use planful
and reflective strategies in decision-making in contrast to persons
in the foreclosure and diffusion statuses (Blustein & Phillips, 1990;
Marcia, 1980; Waterman & Waterman, 1974). Therefore, it is
hypothesized that a rational decision-making style would discrim-
inate well between the educational decision-making profiles char-
acterized by high exploration (i.e., achievement and moratorium)
and low exploration (i.e., moratorium and diffusion).
1.6. Consequences of educational decision-making profiles for choice
implementation
The quality of the way a career decision is made, is expected to
influence the quality of actualization of the chosen direction in the
future (e.g., Gati & Asher, 2001; Harren, 1979; Tiedeman & O’Hara,
1963; Van Esbroeck et al., 2005). However, Kelly and Pulver (2003)
stressed that there have been no studies investigating academic or
career outcomes associated with the different career decision-
making profiles. The current study examined longitudinally the
associations between adolescents’ educational decision-making
profiles and the quality of subsequent choice implementation
(i.e., academic functioning) in higher education. Specifically, we
examined whether the different profiles predict commitment to
the chosen study and adjustment to higher education during the
second year in the chosen major. Because the transition to higher
education requires adolescents to adjust in both the social and
the academic domain (Gall, Evans, & Bellerose, 2000; Gerdes &
Mallinckrodt, 1994), we investigated adjustment to the educa-
tional demands (i.e., academic adjustment) as well as adjustment
to the interpersonal-societal demands (i.e., social adjustment) of
higher education.
Based on reviews by Marcia (1980, 1993) on the relationship
between identity statuses and adjustment and based on studies
about the associations between identity in the career domain and
its outcomes (see Skorikov and Vondracek (2007), for an overview),
we expected that adolescents in the achievement profile, and to a
lesser extent, in the foreclosure profile, would show the highest
commitment to their major and the highest levels of adjustment
in higher education. Students in the moratorium profile were ex-
pected to show less commitment and adjustment than students
in the achievement and foreclosure profiles. Students in the diffu-
sion profile would show the lowest levels of commitment and
adjustment.
2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedure
In all, 665 students (300 boys and 365 girls) participated in this
study. The students came from 25 high schools in Flanders, the
Dutch-speaking part of Belgium. Nearly all students were White.
They followed general education1 and came from the final year in
high school (Grade 12). All students received two questionnaires at
the end of Grade 12 (May 2003). Mean age for this sample at that
moment was 18; 0 years (SD = 6.3 months).
The first questionnaire the students received at the end of Grade
12 assessed background variables (i.e., age and gender) and their
1
In Belgian high schools different educational forms are distinguished (i.e.,
education in the arts, general, technical and vocational education). After successfully
completing high school and receiving a certificate, students from all educational
forms have unrestricted access to higher education. The group of students who follow
general education in high school has the largest proportion of students starting higher
education (i.e., 97.3%; Coppieters et al., 2002).
coping with the six career decisional tasks. The questionnaire
was administered during regular classes and all 665 students filled
it out. In the current study, this sample was used to answer the re-
search question regarding the identification of different career
decision making profiles (first research question). The second ques-
tionnaire probed person characteristics, including career choice
anxiety, career decision-making self-efficacy, and rational decision
making style. This questionnaire was completed at home because
insufficient time was left to fill out both questionnaires within
one class. The questionnaires were delivered in a closed envelope
to the school. In the instructions of the home questionnaires stu-
dents were encouraged to answer the questions independently.
From the 665 students who filled out the first questionnaire, 422
students (168 boys and 254 girls) returned the second question-
naire. The sample of 422 students was used to investigate the
external validity of the career decision-making profiles obtained
by examining their concurrent associations with person character-
istics (second research question). Attrition analyses revealed no
differences between the sample of 422 students and the group of
students who did not complete the second home questionnaire
on the six career decisional tasks (F (6, 565) = 1.81, p = .09,
g2 = .02) neither on the three indices for choice implementation
(i.e., commitment, academic adjustment, and social adjustment)
in higher education (F (3, 368) = 2.09, p = .10, g2 = .02).
At the beginning of the second year in higher education
(November 2004), all students received a questionnaire by mail
probing their commitment to the chosen major and adjustment.
Students were asked to return the questionnaires in a self-
addressed stamped envelope. Students who did not respond were
phoned and asked to still participate in the study. From the 665
students who participated at the end of Grade 12, a total of 373
students answered the questions on commitment to the chosen
major and adjustment during the second year in higher education.
This sample is used to examine the external validity of the deci-
sion-making profiles by investigating their predictive validity for
the quality of choice implementation (second research question).
The attrition analysis revealed no significant differences on the
decisional tasks between the original sample and the students
who dropped out of the study (F (6, 568) = 1.78, p = .10).2
2.2. Measures
All except two measures (i.e., Study Choice Task Inventory and
Commitment Scale in higher education) were originally created in
English and were translated into Dutch by the first author.3 A Ph.D.
student in psychology backtranslated the items into English and an-
other Ph.D. student in psychology matched the original items and
the items backtranslated into English. All items were correctly
matched.
2
In line with a reviewer’s request, we checked whether the cluster solution on the
decisional tasks measured at the end of Grade 12 is similar in the following two
samples: the sample of students who participated at the end of Grade 12 (n = 665)
and the subsample of students who participated at the end of Grade 12 as well as in
the second year of higher education (n = 373). The cluster solutions on the decisional
tasks at the end of Grade 12 in both samples turned out to be highly similar.
3
For all translated instruments (i.e., Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale, Career
Choice Anxiety Scale, Rational Decision-Making Style Scale, Academic Adjustment
Scale, Social Adjustment Scale) the internal structure was investigated through
confirmatory factor analyses. For each scale we tested whether a model with one
underlying dimension holds in the current sample. The items from each scale were
divided at random into four parcels and these parcels were used as indicators of each
dimension. With this procedure the number of measured variables, and hence the
number of parameters to be estimated in the models becomes smaller (Bentler &
Chou, 1987; Marsh & O’Neill, 1984). For each scale, the results showed that the fit of a
one-factor model was good (as indicated by the Standardized Root Mean Square
Residual, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation and the Comparative Fit
Index), supporting the factorial validity of the translated scales.
 V. Germeijs et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 37 (2012) 229–239
2.2.1. Career decisional tasks
To measure the six career decisional tasks (i.e., orientation, self-
exploration, broad environmental exploration, in-depth environ-
mental exploration, decisional status, and commitment) that char-
acterize adolescents’ career decision-making profiles, six subscales
of the Study Choice Task Inventory (SCTI; Germeijs & Verschueren,
2006) were used. The items refer to attitudes (i.e., orientation and
commitment), as well as to behaviors (i.e., exploratory behavior)
that address the tasks. The subscale Orientation to Choice probes
students’ awareness of the need to make a decision and their moti-
vation to engage in the career decision process (e.g., ‘‘I am moti-
vated to tackle choosing a major at the moment’’). A 9-point
scale (going from does not describe me to describes me well) is used
as a response scale. Three subscales of the SCTI assess exploratory
behavior: the Self-Exploratory Behavior scale (e.g., ‘‘I have talked
with my friends about my interests’’), the Broad Exploratory
Behavior scale (e.g., ‘‘I glanced through general summaries about
the structure of higher education’’), and the In-depth Exploratory
Behavior Scale (e.g., ‘‘I have talked to a teacher to get more infor-
mation about these studies’’). For these scales three response cate-
gories (i.e., never, sometimes, often) are used to indicate the
frequency of exploratory behavior during the last and current
school year. Before probing In-depth Exploratory Behavior, we
asked students to name the majors about which they had collected
information. Students who had not looked up information about
any study did not have to fill out the In-depth Exploratory Behavior
Scale.
The subscale Decisional Status consists of two questions (i.e.,
‘‘list all studies you are considering now’’ and ‘‘which study is your
first choice (if undecided, write ‘undecided’)’’). Numerical values
are given to four possibilities in responding: (1) no first choice,
no alternatives, (2) alternatives without first choice, (3) first choice
with alternatives, and (4) first choice with no alternatives. The
Commitment scale of the SCTI (e.g., ‘‘Are you certain about this
study?’’) is based on the Commitment scale of the Groningen Iden-
tity Development Scale (GIDS; Bosma, 1985). Answers on the Com-
mitment scale are given on a 6-point scale ranging from (1) not at
all to (6) yes, very. Only students who indicated having a first
choice in the Decisional Status scale (i.e., score 3 or 4) were asked
to rate the degree of commitment to their choice.
Germeijs and Verschueren (2006) provided evidence for the
reliability and validity of the SCTI. Evidence for the construct valid-
ity of the SCTI was obtained through confirmatory factor analyses
supporting its hypothesized multidimensional structure. Evidence
for the convergent validity was offered through connections in the
expected direction of the SCTI-subscales with existing measures of
career exploration and career decision-making difficulties. Con-
struct validity evidence was also provided by two known-groups
validation analyses. In the current study Cronbach’s alpha indices
at the end of Grade 12 were .89 (Orientation to Choice, 12 items),
.89 (Self-Exploratory Behavior, 20 items), .80 (Broad Exploratory
Behavior, 5 items), .76 (In-depth Exploratory Behavior, 10 items),
and .83 (Commitment, 8 items).
2.2.2. Career decision-making self-efficacy
This construct was measured by the short form of the Career
Decision Self-Efficacy Scale (CDSE-SF; Betz, Klein, & Taylor, 1996).
The CDSE-SF consists of 25 items assessing an individual’s degree
of confidence in completing tasks important in career decision-
making (e.g., ‘‘How much confidence do you have that you could
find information in the library about occupations you are inter-
ested in?’’). Items are answered on a 5-point scale ranging from
(1) no confidence at all to (5) complete confidence. Betz et al.
(1996) provided evidence for the reliability and validity of the
CDSE-SF. In the current study, the internal consistency of this scale
was .93 at the end of Grade 12.
233
2.2.3. Career choice anxiety
To measure the degree of anxiety related to the process of mak-
ing a choice of a major in higher education, the Career Choice Anx-
iety scale of the Career Factors Inventory (CFI; Chartrand, Robbins,
Morril, & Boggs, 1990) was used. The six items were adapted to the
situation of choosing a major in higher education (e.g., ‘‘When I
think about actually deciding for sure what I want to study, I feel
(1) frightened, (5) fearless’’). Evidence was offered for the test–retest
reliability, and the convergent and divergent validity of the Career
Choice Anxiety scale (Chartrand et al., 1990; Vidal-Brown &
Thompson, 2001). In the current study, the internal consistency
of this scale was .91 at the end of Grade 12.
2.2.4. Rational decision-making style
The Rational Decision-Making Style Scale (DMS-R) of the
Assessment of Career Decision Making (Buck & Daniels, 1985)
was used. The DMS-R contains 10 items (e.g., ‘‘I am very systematic
when I go about making an important decision’’). Participants have
to indicate whether each statement is (0) false or mostly false or (1)
true or mostly true. Buck and Daniels (1985) described several stud-
ies that provided evidence for the test–retest reliability, internal
consistency and validity of the scale. In the current study, the
Kuder–Richardson 20 index was .81 at the end of Grade 12.
2.2.5. Commitment to major
To probe the degree of commitment to the chosen major the
Commitment scale of the GIDS (Bosma, 1985) was used. In addition
to the eight items of the GIDS, which were also used in the current
study to probe the degree of commitment before choice implemen-
tation at the end of Grade 12 (see Commitment scale of SCTI), eight
additional items of the GIDS (e.g., ‘‘Do you feel involved in this
study?’’) were used to assess the degree of commitment to the ma-
jor during choice implementation. Bosma (1992) found support for
the validity of the Commitment scale of the GIDS when investigat-
ing differences between groups that were expected to differ in
terms of strengths of commitments in several identity areas. In
the current study, Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .92 at the
beginning of the second year in higher education.
2.2.6. Academic and social adjustment
To probe academic and social adjustment in higher education a
Dutch translation (Beyers & Goossens, 2002) of the Academic
Adjustment scale and the Social Adjustment scale of the Student
Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ; Baker & Syrik, 1989)
was used. The Academic Adjustment Scale consists of 24 items
(e.g., ‘‘I have been keeping up to date on my academic work’’),
referring to the educational demands of the experience in higher
education. The items probe students’ attitudes towards academic
goals and academic work, how well they apply themselves to aca-
demic work, and the effectiveness of their academic efforts. The So-
cial Adjustment Scale consists of 20 items (e.g., ‘‘I am quite
satisfied with my social life at college’’) that refer to the interper-
sonal demands characteristic of higher education. The items assess
students’ involvement and relationships with other people at the
campus, their satisfaction with the social aspects of higher educa-
tion, and the way they deal with being away from home. The items
are scored on a 5-point scale ranging from (1) doesn’t apply to me at
all to (5) applies very closely to me. Beyers and Goossens (2002) pro-
vided support for the validity of the Dutch translation of the SACQ
in a sample of Belgian university students. In the current study,
Cronbach’s alpha for the Academic Adjustment scale and the Social
Adjustment scale was .89 and .88, respectively, at the beginning of
the second year in higher education.
234 V. Germeijs et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 37 (2012) 229–239
2.3. Plan of analysis
To identify the decision-making profiles based on the six career
decisional tasks, we used latent class cluster analysis. From the
sample of 665 students who participated at the end of Grade 12,
a subgroup of 93 students had missing scores on one or more of
the SCTI scales and could therefore not be included in the cluster
analysis. Most of these students had missing values on the In-
depth Exploratory Behavior Scale (n = 19) or on the Commitment
Scale (n = 67) of the SCTI. They did not fill out these scales because
they had not collected information on any major or they had no
first choice (see Measures). In sum, the latent class cluster analysis
was performed on a sample of 572 students. Because the group of
93 students did not have a first choice and/or did not collect de-
tailed information about any major at the end of Grade 12, it is ex-
pected that these students resemble most the students in the
diffusion cluster on the validation variables and on indices of
choice implementation.
Latent class cluster analysis is a statistical method which classi-
fies respondents into mutually exclusive groups with respect to a
latent (i.e., not directly observed) variable (Goodman, 1974a,
1974b; McCutcheon, 1987; Notelaers, Einarsen, De Witte, &
Vermunt, 2006). Magidson and Vermunt (2001) refer to such mod-
els as latent class cluster models because the number of nominal
categories of the latent variable serves the same function as the
number of clusters desired in cluster analysis. An important differ-
ence from traditional cluster methods is that latent class cluster
analysis is a model-based approach. Hence, the appropriateness
of the model can be statistically tested (Magidson & Vermunt,
2002). As a consequence, determining the number of latent classes
is less arbitrary than when using traditional cluster methods.
Another difference is that indicators of different measurement lev-
els can be included into the model as it has been implemented in
different statistical software packages like Latent Gold 4.5
(Vermunt & Magidson, 2009). This versatility in handling different
measurement levels is very convenient in the current study,
because our indicator ‘decisional status’ cannot be conceived as a
continuous measurement as it has only two response categories
(i.e., 3 or 4).
To determine how many clusters are needed to explain the
associations among the indicators, we used the Bayesian Criterion
Information (BIC) (Magidson & Vermunt, 2004; McCutcheon,
1987). In addition, we assessed the improvement of a model by a
conditional bootstrap where the model with T clusters according
to BIC can be compared to a model with T 1 and a model with
T + 1 clusters (Vermunt & Magidson, 2005). We also inspected
the bivariate residuals (BVR), because the latent variable, as in a
traditional measurement model, explains the associations among
the indicators. Furthermore, similar to evaluations of measurement
models, the ratio of v2 divided by the degrees of freedom should be
smaller than 3 (Magidson & Vermunt, 2004). However, the sensi-
tivity to sample size has led to a more practical threshold when
this ratio is higher than 3, that is, the reduction in BVR should be
at least 85% (Notelaers et al., 2006). This indicates that most of
the initial associations among the indicators is explained by the
T cluster solution. In this study, we used that threshold.
To investigate the external validity of the clusters, we tested
whether the clusters differed on career choice anxiety, career deci-
sion-making self-efficacy, and rational decision-making style
through a MANCOVA. In addition, the consequences of the career
decision-making profiles for choice implementation were examined
through a MANCOVA with commitment to the chosen major, social
adjustment, and academic adjustment as dependent variables. In
both MANCOVAs, we controlled for gender and students’ grades
(i.e., students’ average percentage in Grade 12, collected from the
school record data) by including them as independent variables.
3. Results
3.1. Educational decision-making profiles
Latent class cluster analysis on scores for the six career deci-
sional tasks yielded a four latent clusters solution as the most
appropriate. First of all, the BIC of the four latent cluster model
was the lowest. Next, conditional bootstrap based upon the log
likelihood showed that the four latent cluster solution outper-
formed the three latent cluster solution (p < .0001). Although the
five latent cluster solution showed a higher BIC, indicating a dete-
rioration of fit, the conditional bootstrap based upon Log Likeli-
hood bootstrap indicated that the five clusters would be a slight
improvement compared to the four latent cluster solution
(p < .05). Inspection of the bivariate residuals (BVRs) revealed,
however, that the five latent cluster solution did not represent an
improvement with regard to explaining away the associations
among the indicators.
The final four-cluster solution is presented in Fig. 1. In Fig. 1, the
clusters are defined using Z scores based on the total sample. The
distance between the cluster means and the total sample standard-
ized mean, expressed in SD, can be interpreted as an effect size
(Scholte, van Lieshout, de Wit, & van Aken, 2005). Analogous to
Cohen’s d (1988), 0.2SD is a small effect, 0.5SD is a medium or mod-
erate effect, and 0.8SD is a large effect. Cluster 1 (n = 118) consisted
of adolescents scoring moderately high to high on decisional status
and commitment and very high on environmental exploration (i.e.,
broad and in-depth), self-exploration and orientation relative to
the sample mean. In accordance with Marcia’s (1966) definition
of the achievement status, Cluster 1 was labeled as the achieve-
ment cluster. Cluster 2 (n = 183) scored relatively high on deci-
sional status and commitment, but intermediate on the three
exploration tasks. Adolescents in this cluster scored moderately
high on orientation. This cluster resembled most the achievement
cluster in terms of decisional status and commitment. However,
students in Cluster 2 had intermediate scores instead of high scores
on the exploration tasks and scored lower on orientation than stu-
dents in the achievement cluster. In sum, students in Cluster 2 are
decided and did gather some information, but their exploration
was substantially less intense compared to students in the achieve-
ment cluster. Based on Marcia’s model (1980) and on the corre-
spondence with the empirically identified foreclosure status in
identity research (e.g., Luyckx, Vansteenkiste, Duriez, & Goossens,
2009), this cluster was labeled as the foreclosure cluster. Cluster
3 (n = 91) was labeled as the moratorium cluster because it con-
sisted of adolescents who scored moderately low to very low on
decisional status and commitment relative to the sample mean
and moderately high to high on the three exploration tasks. Cluster
4 (n = 180), consisted of adolescents scoring relatively low to very
low on all decisional tasks. Only for decisional status, this cluster
scored intermediate. Based on Marcia’s model (1980) and in line
with personal identity research (e.g., Luyckx et al., 2005), Cluster
4 was labeled as the diffusion cluster.
Chi-square analysis indicated a significant relationship between
gender and classification in the four clusters (v2 (3) = 33.65,
p < .01). The standardized residuals showed that in the diffusion
cluster more boys were observed than expected, and in the
achievement cluster fewer boys were observed than expected. Be-
cause of this gender effect, we controlled for gender in the remain-
der of the analyses.
3.2. External validation: concurrent associations
A MANCOVA on the three person variables (i.e., career
choice anxiety, career decision-making self-efficacy, and rational
 V. Germeijs et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 37 (2012) 229–239 235

Fig. 1. Z-scores for career decisional tasks in the 4-cluster solution.

Table 1
External validation: mean scores on person variables and choice implementation as a function of the four extracted clusters.

Variable Clusters F1 g2
Achievement Foreclosure Moratorium Diffused
Person variables
Career choice anxiety 2.16a 2.14a 2.78b 2.55b 9.12* .09
Career decision-making self-efficacy 3.94a 3.73b 3.48c 3.38c 17.48* .15
Rational decision-making style 0.82a 0.67b 0.70b 0.56c 9.56* .09
Choice implementation
Academic adjustment 3.92a 3.85a 3.64b 3.48b 8.64* .09
Social adjustment 4.05a 3.95b 3.75bc 3.62c 9.38* .09
Commitment 5.18a 5.08a 4.78b 4.66b 10.17* .10

Note: Means in the same row that do not share subscripts differ at p < .05 on post hoc contrasts.
1
F (3, 281) for analyses on person variables, F (3, 253) for analyses on choice implementation.
*
p < .01.

decision-making style) with educational decision-making profile,
gender, and grades at the end of Grade 12 as independent variables
yielded a significant main effect of the educational decision-making
clusters (F (9, 679.16) = 9.11, p < .01, g2 = .09). The main effects of
the control variables gender and grades were not significant (F
(3, 279) = .71, p = .55, g2 = .01 and F (3, 279) = 1.58, p = .19, g2 = .02,
respectively). Subsequent univariate ANOVAs revealed significant
cluster differences on each person variable (see Table 1). The effect
sizes for all three variables were medium to large (Cohen, 1988).
As hypothesized, students in the achievement or foreclosure
cluster showed lower career choice anxiety and higher career
decision-making self-efficacy than students in the moratorium or
diffusion cluster. Table 1 also indicates that adolescents in the
achievement cluster, which is the only cluster characterized by
relatively high levels on all career decisional tasks, have the most
positive beliefs concerning their ability to complete career
decisional tasks. The results also indicate that the two clusters
characterized by a relatively low degree of commitment to their
educational choice (i.e., the moratorium and diffusion clusters)
did not differ significantly in career choice anxiety or career
decision-making self-efficacy. With regard to the rational deci-
sion-making style, hypotheses were also confirmed. Students in
the achievement and moratorium clusters showed higher levels
of a rational decision-making style than students in the diffusion
cluster. In addition, the achievement cluster scored higher on
rational decision-making style than the foreclosure cluster. Only
the hypothesized difference between the moratorium and foreclo-
sure cluster failed to reach significance.
3.3. External validation: implications for choice implementation
With regard to the effect on commitment and adjustment in
higher education, the MANCOVA yielded significant cluster
differences (F (9, 611) = 4.60, p < .01, g2 = .05). Subsequent univari-
ate ANOVAs revealed significant cluster differences on the three
indices for choice implementation (see Table 1). The effect sizes
were medium (Cohen, 1988). As expected, students in the achieve-
ment cluster exhibited the most adaptive pattern during the
second year in higher education. The achievement cluster scored
higher on academic adjustment, social adjustment, and commit-
ment than the moratorium and diffusion cluster. In addition,
students in the achievement cluster scored higher on social adjust-
ment than students in the foreclosure cluster. The results also
showed that the two clusters with relatively low scores on
commitment to their choice (i.e., the moratorium and diffusion
clusters4) did not differ significantly on the three indices of choice
implementation.
Significant effects of the two control variables on choice imple-
mentation were obtained (F (3, 251) = 5.10, p < .01, g2 = .06 for
students’ grades in Grade 12 and F (3, 251) = 6.59, p < .01, g2 = .07
for gender). Subsequent univariate ANOVAs revealed a significant
effect of grades in Grade 12 on the three indices of choice
implementation (F (1, 253) = 14.94, p < .01, g2 = .05 on academic
adjustment; F (1, 253) = 5.64, p < .05, g2 = .02 on social adjustment;
F (1, 253) = 6.35, p < .05, g2 = .02 on commitment). Students with
higher grades at the end of Grade 12 tended to show higher levels
of adjustment (i.e., both in the social and academic domain) and
more commitment to their major during the second year in higher
4
A small group of adolescents who did not collect any in-depth information on a
major (n = 19) and/or who did not have a first choice at the end of Grade 12 (n = 67)
could not be included in the cluster analysis because of missing values on the in-
depth exploratory behavior scale and/or the commitment scale. Additional analyses
showed that this group of adolescents did not differ significantly from the diffusion
cluster on all validation variables and indices of choice implementation. Only for the
validation variable career choice anxiety, this group of students scored even higher
than students from the diffusion cluster.
236 V. Germeijs et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 37 (2012) 229–239
education. In addition, significant gender differences were revealed
on social adjustment during the second year in higher education (F
(1, 253) = 4.86, p < .05, g2 = .02), with girls showing higher scores
on social adjustment than boys.
4. Discussion
The present study aimed to empirically derive by means of clus-
ter analysis educational decision-making profiles among adoles-
cents who make a choice of a major in higher education. In
addition, the external validity of these profiles was examined.
The findings of the present study show that this approach can
add to our understanding of differences between adolescents in
their approach to educational decision-making.
Using a differentiated set of six career decisional tasks, four
clusters were retained which paralleled Marcia’s (1966) identity
statuses. The bulk of previous identity research focusing on these
identity statuses relied heavily on theory-based assumptions and
techniques (such as median-split procedures; but see Luyckx
et al., 2005, 2008) to derive identity statuses. Given that the pres-
ent study made use of the data-driven procedure of latent class
clustering, we provide important validity evidence for Marcia’s
model. Moreover, statuses in identity research are usually derived
at an overall level (i.e., across several content domains) or at the le-
vel of a broad domain (e.g., referring to identity statuses across a
broad range of career choices). The current study focused on one
specific identity-relevant decision in the career domain, thereby
demonstrating that Marcia’s model is also valid for describing
the way individuals deal with a real and specific identity-relevant
decision or with a micro-process in identity development.
4.1. Characterization of the two committed clusters
Two of the four clusters showed moderately high to high levels
of decisional status and commitment: the achievement cluster and
the foreclosure cluster. Therefore, students in these clusters can all
be labeled as more decided regarding their choice of a major and
more attached to and confident in this choice than students of
the other two clusters. However, the two decided clusters were
clearly differentiated by their exploratory behavior. In line with
definitions of the achievement and foreclosure statuses by Marcia
(1980), the cluster with the highest levels of self- and environmen-
tal exploration (i.e., broad and in depth) was labeled as the
achievement cluster, whereas the cluster showing lower levels
for these decisional tasks was labeled as the foreclosure cluster.
These results confirm the idea that commitment to a career
choice is not necessarily associated with a period of intense explo-
ration (Blustein et al., 1989). The findings are also in line with the
more or less orthogonal relationship between exploration and
commitment that is hypothesized and demonstrated in the
identity literature. Commitments can either be formed with or
without a period of intense exploration. Interestingly, in line with
the degree of exploration, the achievement cluster scored very high
on orientation whereas the foreclosure cluster scored only
moderately high on this decisional task. Apparently, adolescents
in the foreclosure cluster are less motivated to actively engage in
the educational decision-making process than adolescents in the
achievement cluster which probably results in limited engagement
in exploratory activities.
When comparing the two decided clusters identified with the
career decision-making profiles that emerged in previous studies,
the achievement cluster seems to correspond most with the
‘‘decided’’ or ‘‘ready to decide’’ type (Kelly & Pulver, 2003). In the
current study, adolescents in the achievement cluster showed
relatively high to very high scores on exploration, decisional status,
and commitment. In addition, students in the achievement cluster
showed the most adaptive pattern in terms of career choice anxi-
ety and career decision-making self-efficacy. However, the results
of this study also show that, in contrast to previous career
decision-making research (Brisbin & Savickas, 1994; Skorikov &
Vondracek, 2007), we were able to distinguish a foreclosed group
which is differentiated from the achievement group. These results
suggest that school counselors should not only focus on helping
undecided clients, but that some decided clients (i.e., the foreclo-
sure group) may also benefit from interventions that foster
self- and environmental exploration.
4.2. Characterization of the two uncommitted clusters
Two clusters were identified with moderately low to low levels
of commitment: the moratorium cluster and the diffusion cluster.
However, both clusters were differentiated by their degree of
exploration and orientation. In accordance with the definitions of
the uncommitted statuses by Marcia (1980), the moratorium clus-
ter showed moderately high levels of self- and environmental
exploration (i.e., broad and in depth), whereas the diffusion cluster
showed low levels on these decisional tasks. Important to note is
that the diffusion cluster scored the lowest of all clusters on orien-
tation. Apparently, adolescents in this cluster are not aware of the
fact that they have to make an educational decision by the end of
the school year and are not motivated to engage in this decision-
making process.
In previous research on career decision-making profiles, two
types of undecided clusters emerged frequently, that is a ‘‘develop-
mentally undecided’’ and a ‘‘chronically indecisive’’ group (Kelly &
Pulver, 2003). Whereas adolescents in the former cluster were
characterized by low negative affect, adolescents in the latter clus-
ter tended to show high levels of negative affect (e.g., high levels of
anxiety, low self-esteem, and lack of decision-making confidence).
Taking into account the characterization of the diffusion cluster on
the decisional tasks together with the levels of career choice anxi-
ety and career decision-making self-efficacy in this cluster, this
group seems to replicate the ‘‘chronically indecisive’’ type as found
in previous career research (Kelly & Pulver, 2003). The moratorium
cluster identified in the current study does not seem to correspond
with the ‘‘developmentally undecided’’ group which was found in
previous research. The moratorium cluster was characterized by
relatively high scores on the three exploration tasks, whereas indi-
viduals in the ‘‘developmentally undecided’’ group were not well
informed and showed a high need for information. Certain clusters
that were identified in some career decision-making studies
(Larson et al., 1988; Rojewski, 1994; Savickas & Jarjoura, 1991),
such as the ‘‘transitional indecision’’ cluster (i.e., undecided but
having started the process of career exploration) or the ‘‘informed
indecisives’’ (i.e., well informed but still unable to make a decision)
seem to correspond more with the moratorium cluster in the cur-
rent study.
Important to note is that in the current study the group of ado-
lescents on which the analyses were performed had all gathered
in-depth information about at least one college major and all had
a first choice at the end of Grade 12. The group of adolescents
who did not collect any in-depth information on a major and/or
who did not have a first choice at the end of Grade 12 (n = 93)
was not included in the cluster analysis but turned out to resemble
most the diffusion cluster on the validation variables and indices of
choice implementation in additional analyses. In sum, students
who did not collect detailed information about any major and/or
who did not have a first choice at the end of Grade 12 showed a less
adaptive pattern of person characteristics and choice implementa-
tion compared to students in the achievement, foreclosure, and
moratorium clusters.
 V. Germeijs et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 37 (2012) 229–239
4.3. Associations with person variables
The relationships between the identified clusters and the three
person variables provided evidence for the external validity of the
four clusters. First and as expected, scores on the rational decision-
making style were in the same direction as the scores on the explo-
ration tasks. The achievement and moratorium clusters scored
higher than the diffusion clusters on this decision-making style.
In addition, the achievement cluster scored higher than the fore-
closure cluster on rational decision-making style. The difference
in means between the moratorium and foreclosure cluster on ra-
tional decision-making was in line with expectations, but failed
to reach significance. Given that the rational decision-making style
was investigated with regard to making decisions in general, the
findings of this study suggest that the high and low career explora-
tion groups will also adopt different degrees of exploratory behav-
ior and planning when making decisions in other life domains than
the career domain. The differences found between the high and
low exploration clusters on rational decision making style are in
line with research on the relationship between identity statuses
and information-processing styles. The degree of using an informa-
tion-oriented style (i.e., active exploration and information seek-
ing) when faced with identity-relevant decisions has been found
to be higher for individuals in the achievement and moratorium
statuses than for individuals in the foreclosure and diffusion sta-
tuses (Schwartz, Mullis, Waterman, & Dunham, 2000).
With regard to career choice anxiety and career decision-
making self-efficacy the results show that adolescents in the
achievement and foreclosure clusters displayed a better profile
than those in the moratorium and diffusion clusters. These findings
are in line with prior research on career decision-making showing
that career choice anxiety was negatively and career decision-
making self-efficacy was positively associated with career choice
certainty and decidedness (e.g., Betz, 2001; Vidal-Brown &
Thompson, 2001). The findings are also in line with the well-
established results in the identity literature showing that adoles-
cents in the foreclosure and especially achievement status showed
the highest self-esteem (e.g., Marcia & Friedman, 1970; Read,
Adams, & Dobson, 1984) and adolescents in the diffusion and
especially moratorium status displayed the most anxiety and
depression (e.g., Marcia, 1967).
Hence, although it has been suggested that having no stable or
firmly established identity commitments might constitute an
adaptive response in Western late-modern societies (e.g., Gergen,
1991), most research to date indicated that scoring high on identity
commitment was generally associated with optimal psychosocial
functioning in Western contemporary societies (e.g., Luyckx
et al., 2008; Schwartz et al., 2011).
Due to the characteristics of the Belgian educational system, the
end of Grade 12 is the moment at which students are expected to
have made a choice of a major in higher education. As a result,
students who are still uncertain about their major choice at that
moment may feel stressed and may develop negative beliefs
regarding their ability to make this educational choice. However,
given that the career decisional tasks as well as career choice anx-
iety and career decision-making self-efficacy were measured at the
same moment, the findings may also indicate that anxiety and low
self-efficacy beliefs may take their toll in the failure to decide and
to be certain and confident about an important educational choice.
The results also showed that the foreclosure cluster scored
lower than the achievement cluster on career decision-making
self-efficacy. Although unexpected, similar results were reported
recently by Nauta and Kahn (2007), who found a negative
association between the foreclosure identity status and career
decision-making self-efficacy. These authors suggest that
foreclosed individuals may recognize that they did not explore
237
sufficiently to warrant confidence in their ability to make career
decisions.
4.4. Consequences for choice implementation
The obtained career decision-making profiles showed differen-
tial associations with three indices of the quality of choice imple-
mentation during the second year in higher education. In general,
students in the achievement cluster showed the most positive
pattern of academic functioning in terms of academic adjustment,
social adjustment, and commitment to the chosen major. Students
in the moratorium and diffused clusters showed the least adaptive
pattern on choice implementation.
An important result of the current study is the significant differ-
ence between the achievement cluster and foreclosure cluster,
with students in the achievement cluster showing higher scores
on social adjustment than students in the foreclosure cluster.
These results are in line with identity research reporting negative
relationships between identity foreclosure and the formation of
mature social relationships (Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000) and showing
that identity achievers have more adaptive interactional skills than
the other statuses (Clancy & Dollinger, 1993; Read et al., 1984).
Foreclosures tend to be less tolerant of others and tend to seek
approval and reassurance from others (Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000).
This social behavior may interfere with interpersonal adjustment
in several contexts, including the integration in social life and the
formation of a support network in higher education.
The findings regarding the differential relations between the ca-
reer decision-making profiles and choice implementation in higher
education are in line with the idea that the way individuals arrive
at a career decision may have important consequences for the
quality of the implementation of the decision (e.g., Gati & Asher,
2001; Van Esbroeck et al., 2005). The finding that the achievement
cluster showed the most adaptive pattern of choice implementa-
tion may be due to its combination of relatively high levels of
involvement on all career decisional tasks. Hence, the results offer
important empirical support for theoretical models on career
decision-making (e.g., Harren, 1979; Tiedeman & O’Hara, 1963;
Van Esbroeck et al., 2005) in which these different decisional tasks
are distinguished and hypothesized to be all important for the
quality of a person’s career decision-making process.
4.5. Limitations and directions for future research
The present study has a number of limitations, which may pro-
vide suggestions for future research. First, this study only focused
on choosing a major in higher education. Future studies could give
an indication about the generalizability of the findings to other
educational or career decisions (e.g., choosing a job). A second lim-
itation is the specificity of our sample. Because cluster analysis is a
data-driven procedure, the nature of the sample is important and
limits the generalizations that can be made. In the current study
all students were White and followed general education in high
school. In addition, the educational decision-making profiles were
studied in the Belgian educational context which expects adoles-
cents to make a choice of a major by the end of high school.
Because the specific cultural–educational context may provide an
incentive for working on the educational decisional tasks and for
working on the broader developmental task of preparing for a
career (Grotevant, 1987; Kalakoski & Nurmi, 1998), differences
among educational systems and related expectations can affect
the timing and the way of making educational decisions. For exam-
ple, it may be that in other countries where choosing a major is less
urgent at the age of 18 (e.g., North-American students start in
colleges and choose a major later on) the levels of the decisional
tasks are lower than in the current study. Therefore, it might be
238 V. Germeijs et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 37 (2012) 229–239
interesting for future cross-national studies to clarify the role of
the educational system on educational decision-making profiles.
Third, not all students from the original sample could be included
in the validation analyses because they did not complete the home
questionnaire or did not participate at the second wave. For exam-
ple, although parts of the questionnaire used in the second wave
could also be completed by students who did not enter higher edu-
cation, it may be that especially this group of students decided to
participate no longer in the second wave because the focus of the
study (i.e., choosing a major) was not relevant anymore to them.
This attrition may affect the generalizability of our findings. How-
ever, additional analyses indicate that the effect of attrition on the
variables of interest was rather limited. Finally, given that the
career decisional tasks and the person variables were measured
at the same moment, no inferences can be drawn regarding the
directionality in relationships between the career decision-making
profiles and decision-making style, career choice anxiety, and
career decision-making self-efficacy.
4.6. Conclusion
The findings of the present study provide valuable information
on differences between adolescents who are faced with an
educational decision. Given that previous research on career deci-
sion-making profiles mostly focused on career decision-making at
a general level, the current study emphasized the importance of
distinguishing profiles in specific micro-processes during career
development. To our knowledge, this study is also the first that
managed to differentiate between an achieved and foreclosed pro-
file in the career domain and to show that both decided profiles
have different associations with person variables and the quality
of choice implementation. In line with the experience of career
counselors that different subtypes of adolescents who have to
make an educational choice may exist, the results of the current
study do not only suggest that the differentiation between decided
and undecided students is a relevant one, but that the type of inde-
cision and of decidedness is important as well.
References
Baker, R. W., & Syrik, B. (1989). Student adaptation to college questionnaire (SACQ):
Manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological
Methods and Research, 16, 78–117.
Berzonsky, M. D., & Kuk, L. S. (2000). Identity status, identity processing style, and
the transition to university. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 81–98.
Betz, N. E. (2001). Career self-efficacy. In T. L. Leong & A. Barak (Eds.), Contemporary
models in vocational psychology: A volume in honor of Samuel H. Osipow
(pp. 55–78). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Betz, N. E., Klein, K. L., & Taylor, K. M. (1996). Evaluation of a short form of the career
decision making self-efficacy scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 47–57.
Beyers, W., & Goossens, L. (2002). Concurrent and predictive validity of the Student
Adaptation to College Questionnaire in a sample of European freshman
students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 527–538.
Blustein, D. L., Devenis, L. E., & Kidney, B. A. (1989). Relationships between the
identity formation process and career development. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 36, 196–202.
Blustein, D. L., Ellis, M. V., & Devenis, L. E. (1989). The development and validation of
a two-dimensional model of the commitment to career choices process. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 35, 342–378.
Blustein, D. L., & Phillips, S. D. (1990). Relation between ego identity statuses and
decision-making styles. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 160–168.
Bosma, H. A. (1985). Identity development in adolescence: Coping with commitments.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
Bosma, H. A. (1992). Identity in adolescence: Managing commitments. In G. R.
Adams, T. P. Gullotta, & R. Montemayor (Eds.), Adolescent identity formation
(pp. 91–121). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bosma, H. A., & Kunnen, S. E. (2001). Determinants and mechanisms in ego identity
development: A review and synthesis. Developmental Review, 21, 39–66.
Brisbin, L. A., & Savickas, M. L. (1994). Career indecision scales do not measure
foreclosure. Journal of Career Assessment, 2, 352–363.
Brown, S. D., & Rector, C. C. (2008). Conceptualizing and diagnosing problems in
vocational decision making. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of
counseling psychology (pp. 392–407). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Buck, J. N., & Daniels, M. H. (1985). Assessment of career decision making: Manual. Los
Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Callanan, G. A., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1992). The career indecision of managers and
professionals: An examination of multiple subtypes. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 41, 212–231.
Chartrand, J. M., Martin, W. F., Robbins, S. B., McAuliffe, G. J., Pickering, J. W., &
Calliotte, J. A. (1994). Testing a level versus an interactional view of career
indecision. Journal of Career Assessment, 2, 55–69.
Chartrand, J. M., Robbins, S. B., Morril, W. H., & Boggs, K. (1990). Development and
validation of the career factors inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37,
491–501.
Clancy, S. M., & Dollinger, S. J. (1993). Identity, self, and personality: I. Identity
status and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 3, 227–245.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Coppieters, P., Creten, H., Glorieux, I., Lancksweerdt, P., Laurijssen, I., Leysen, V.,
et al. (2002). Hoe maken Vlaamse jongeren de overgang van school naar werk?
[How do Flemish adolescents make the transition from school to work?].
Eindrapport PB0’97 (Sonar). Leuven, Belgium: Steunpunt WAV.
DiStefano, C., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2006). Investigating subtypes of child
development. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 778–794.
Flum, H., & Blustein, D. L. (2000). Reinvigorating the study of vocational exploration:
A framework for research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 380–440.
Gall, T. L., Evans, D. R., & Bellerose, S. (2000). Transition to first-year University:
Patterns of change in adjustment across life domains and time. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 19, 544–567.
Gati, I., & Asher, I. (2001). The PIC model for career decision making: Prescreening,
in-depth exploration, and choice. In T. L. Leong & A. Barak (Eds.), Contemporary
models in vocational psychology: A volume in honor of Samuel H. Osipow
(pp. 6–54). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gerdes, H., & Mallinckrodt, B. (1994). Emotional, social, and academic adjustment of
college students: A longitudinal study of retention. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 72, 281–288.
Gergen, K. J. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemnas of identity in contemporary life. New
York: Basic Books.
Germeijs, V., & Verschueren, K. (2006). High school students’ career decision-
making process: Development and validation of the study choice task
inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 449–471.
Goodman, L. A. (1974a). The analysis of quantitative variables when some of the
variables are unobserved: Part I – A modified latent structure approach.
American Journal of Sociology, 79, 1179–1259.
Goodman, L. A. (1974b). Exploratory latent structure models using both identifiable
and unidentifiable models. Biometrika, 61, 215–231.
Goossens, L. (2001). Global versus domain-specific statuses in identity research: A
comparison of two self-report measures. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 681–699.
Gore, P. A. (2000). Cluster analysis. In H. E. A. Tinsley & S. D. Brown (Eds.), Handbook
of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 297–321). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Grotevant, H. D. (1987). Toward a process model of identity formation. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 2, 203–222.
Harren, V. A. (1979). A model of career decision-making for college students. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 14, 119–133.
Jordaan, J. P. (1963). Exploratory behavior: The formation of self and occupational
concepts. In Career development: Self-concept theory. Essays in vocational
development (pp. 42–78). Princeton, NJ: College Entrance Examination Board.
Kalakoski, V., & Nurmi, J. E. (1998). Identity and educational transitions: Age
differences in adolescent exploration and commitment related to education,
occupation, and family. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 29–47.
Kelly, K. R., & Pulver, C. A. (2003). Refining measurement of career indecision types:
A validity study. Journal of Counseling and Development, 81, 445–454.
Kroger, J. (2003). Identity development during adolescence. In G. R. Adams & M. D.
Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of adolescence (pp. 205–226). Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Kroger, J., Martinussen, M., & Marcia, J. E. (2010). Identity status change during
adolescence and young adulthood: A meta-analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 33,
683–698.
Larson, L. M., Heppner, P. P., Ham, T., & Dugan, K. (1988). Investigating multiple
subtypes of career indecision through cluster analysis. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 35, 439–446.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive
theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122.
Lucas, M. S. (1993). A validation of career indecision at a counseling center. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 40, 440–446.
Lucas, M. S., & Epperson, D. L. (1990). Types of vocational undecidedness: A
replication and refinement. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 382–388.
Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., & Soenens, B. (2006). A developmental-contextual
perspective on identity construction in emerging adulthood: Change
dynamics in commitment formation and commitment evaluation.
Developmental Psychology, 42, 366–380.
Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., Beyers, W., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2005). Identity
statuses based upon four rather than two identity dimensions: Extending and
refining Marcia’s paradigm. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 605–618.
Luyckx, K., Schwartz, S. J., Berzonsky, M. D., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Smits, I.,
et al. (2008). Capturing ruminative exploration: Extending the four-
 V. Germeijs et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 37 (2012) 229–239
dimensional model of identity formation in late adolescence. Journal of Research
in Personality, 42, 58–82.
Luyckx, K., Vansteenkiste, M., Duriez, B., & Goossens, L. (2009). Basic need
satisfaction and identity formation: Bridging self-determination theory and
process-oriented identity research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56,
276–288.
Magidson, J., & Vermunt, J. K. (2001). Latent class factor and cluster models, bi-plots
and related graphical displays. Sociological Methodology, 31, 223–264.
Magidson, J., & Vermunt, J. K. (2002). Latent class modelling as a probabilistic
extension of K-means clustering. Quirk’s Marketing Research Review, 3(20),
77–80.
Magidson, J., & Vermunt, J. K. (2004). Latent class models. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The
Sage handbook for quantitative methodology (pp. 175–198). Thousand Oake, CA:
Sage.
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551–558.
Marcia, J. E. (1967). Ego identity status: Relationship to change in self-esteem,
‘‘general adjustment’’, and authoritarianism. Journal of Personality, 35, 119–133.
Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of
adolescent psychology (pp. 159–187). New York: Wiley.
Marcia, J. E. (1993). The status of the statuses: Research review. In J. E. Marcia, A. S.
Waterman, D. R. Matteson, S. L. Archer, & J. L. Orlofsky (Eds.), Identity: A
handbook for psychosocial research (pp. 22–41). New York: Springer.
Marcia, J. E., & Friedman, M. L. (1970). Ego identity status in college women. Journal
of Personality, 38, 249–263.
Marsh, H. W., & O’Neill, R. (1984). Self description questionnaire III: The construct
validity of multidimensional self-concept ratings by late adolescents. Journal of
Educational Measurement, 21, 153–174.
McCutcheon, A. L. (1987). Latent class analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Nauta, M. N., & Kahn, J. H. (2007). Identity status, consistency and differentiation of
interests, and career decision-making self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment,
15, 55–65.
Notelaers, G., Einarsen, S., De Witte, H., & Vermunt, J. K. (2006). Measuring exposure
to bullying at work: The validity and advantages of the latent class cluster
approach. Work and Stress, 20, 288–301.
Osipow, S. H. (1987). Career decision scale manual (Rev. ed.). Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Porfeli, E. J., & Skorikov, V. B. (2010). Specific and diverse career exploration during
late adolescence. Journal of Career Assessment, 18, 46–58.
Read, D., Adams, G. R., & Dobson, W. R. (1984). Ego identity status, personality, and
social influence style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 169–177.
Robitschek, C., & Cook, S. W. (1999). The influence of personal growth initiative and
coping styles on career exploration and vocational identity. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 54, 127–141.
Rojewski, J. W. (1994). Career indecision types for rural adolescents from
disadvantaged and nondisadvantaged backgrounds. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 41, 356–363.
239
Savickas, M. L. (1985). Identity in vocational development. Journal of Vocational
Development, 27, 329–337.
Savickas, M. L., & Jarjoura, D. (1991). The career decision scale as a type indicator.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 85–90.
Scholte, R. H. J., van Lieshout, C. F. M., de Wit, C. A. M., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2005).
Adolescent personality types and subtypes and their psychosocial adjustment.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51, 258–286.
Schwartz, S., Beyers, W., Luyckx, K., Soenens, B., Zamboanga, B., Forthun, L., et al.
(2011). Examining the light and ark sides of emerging adults’ identity: A study
of identity status differences in positive and negative psychosocial functioning.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 839–859.
Schwartz, S. J., Mullis, R. L., Waterman, A. S., & Dunham, R. M. (2000). Ego identity
status, identity style, and personal expressiveness: An empirical investigation of
three convergent constructs. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 504–521.
Skorikov, V. B., & Vondracek, F. W. (1998). Vocational identity development: Its
relationship to other identity domains and to overall identity development.
Journal of Career Assessment, 6, 13–35.
Skorikov, V. B., & Vondracek, F. W. (2007). Vocational identity. In V. B. Skorikov & W.
Patton (Eds.), Career development in childhood and adolescence (pp. 143–168).
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Skorikov, V. B., & Vondracek, F. W. (2011). Occupational identity. In S. J. Schwartz, K.
Luyckx, & L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research
(pp. 693–714). New York: Springer.
Super, D. E. (1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 16, 282–298.
Tiedeman, D. V., & O’Hara, R. P. (1963). Career development: Choice and adjustment.
New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Van Esbroeck, R., Tibos, K., & Zaman, M. (2005). A dynamic model of career choice
development. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 5,
5–18.
Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2005). Technical guide for Latent Gold 4.0: Basic and
advanced. Belmont, CA: Statistical Innovations.
Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2009). Latent Gold (Version 4.5). Belmont, CA:
Statistical Innovations.
Vidal-Brown, S. A., & Thompson, B. (2001). The career assessment diagnostic
inventory: A new career indecision assessment tool. Journal of Career
Assessment, 9, 185–202.
Vondracek, F. W., Schulenberg, J., Skorikov, V., Gillespie, L. K., & Wahlheim, C.
(1995). The relationship of identity status to career indecision during
adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 17–29.
Wanberg, C. R., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1992). A typology of career decision status:
Validity extension of the vocational decision status model. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 39, 71–80.
Waterman, C. K., & Waterman, A. S. (1974). Ego identity status and decision styles.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 3, 1–6.