11

VOCATIONAL INTERESTS IN A GLOBAL BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

Jason L. Huang

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Shan Ran

MERCER UNIVERSITY

Mengqiao Liu

DEVELOPMENT DIMENSIONS INTERNATIONAL

Recent findings that vocational interests can predict individual job performance have underscored the potential instrumental role vocational interests can play in human capital management (Nye, Su, Rounds, & Drasgow, 2012; Van Iddekinge, Putka, & Campbell, 2011). However, it is unclear whether the science of vocational interests that is heavily rooted in research conducted in the United States may apply in different cultures. This is particularly important as businesses are faced with ever-increasing challenges to manage human capital across cultures and national boundaries (Kossek, Huang, Piszczek, Fleenor, & Ruderman, 2015). Thus, a critical review of cross-cultural research on vocational interests is in order.

The chapter serves two goals. First, we review the cross-cultural literature pertaining to vocational interests and its implications for global businesses, with a focus on how national and cultural contexts influence the structure of vocational interests and impact key correlates of interests. Second, we seek to identify directions for future research that can enhance current understanding of vocational interests’ role in human capital management in a global economy.

Review of Cross-Cultural Vocational Interest Research

One of the focal questions in cross-cultural research is whether a phenomenon (e.g., the influence of vocational interests on job satisfaction) is universal, or is contingent on the culture in which it is enacted. In other words, one should examine, as posited by Graen, Hui, Wakabayashi, and Wang (1997), whether the phenomenon is etic (universal across all cultures) or emic (unique to a culture). Traditional literature on vocational interests had assumed an etic approach, with the majority of the studies conducted in a single, typically Western, context. Emerging research endeavors have started to investigate some cultural contingencies concerning vocational interests. Addressing such complexity can lead to a more in-depth understanding of what is etic and what is emic, which can provide useful guidance for businesses managing human capital across national and cultural boundaries.

To provide an up-to-date review of vocational interest research with a particular focus on cross-cultural implications, we conducted a comprehensive literature search to identify relevant journal articles and book chapters. We organize our review into three sections: (a) the structure of vocational interests; (b) the relationships between interests and key individual difference variables (i.e., cognitive ability, personality, and self-efficacy); and (c) the influence of interests on occupational outcomes.

In each section, we first review the general findings in the literature, which are usually culture-blind and predominantly conducted in the Anglo cultural cluster. We then present research that focuses on the same relationships in different cultures.

Structure and Measurement

Since Holland (1959, 1966) proposed the influential RIASEC model (see the introduction to this volume for a description), the hexagon of vocational interests has been widely adopted in research and practice, especially for the occupational classifications in the United States (National Center for O^⋆NET Development, 2015). Organized along six corners of a hexagon, people-things and data-ideas best describe the underlying two-dimensional structure (Donnay & Borgen, 1996; Prediger, 1982; Tay, Su, & Rounds, 2011). This circular structure predicts that the six pairs of adjacent interests (i.e., RI, IA, AS, SE, EC, and CR) show the strongest associations, followed by the six pairs of alternate interests (i.e., RA, IS, AE, SC, ER, and CI), and the three pairs of opposite interests (i.e., RS, IE, and AS) should show the weakest associations (Holland, 1973, 1985, 1997).

Cross-Cultural Differences in Structure

Gati (1979, 1984, 1991) challenged this circular structure and argued that vocational interests do not have different degrees of proximity. Instead, occupations are grouped based on their similarities in a hierarchically organized tree structure. This tree or hierarchical structure yields two major categories of “soft” and “hard” sciences. Under the “soft” science category, the AS pair represents service-related, social, and cultural interests, and the EC pair represents business-related interests. RI, under the “hard” science category, represent science-related interests. As a result, only three pairs of similar types (i.e., AS, EC, and RI) are expected to show stronger associations, whereas the twelve dissimilar pairs should be correlated to a weaker extent.

Although Holland’s and Gati’s models share some common predictions, Holland’s model contains additional constraints: The magnitudes of correlations are expected to be weaker (a) between alternate interests than between adjacent interests and (b) between opposite interests than between alternate interests. A meta-analysis using 104 studies revealed favorable support for Holland’s circular model (Tracey & Rounds, 1993). However, 77 out of 104 (74%) of the analyzed studies were from the United States, 19 studies (18%) were from Australia or New Zealand, and only 9 studies (9%) were from more culturally dissimilar countries (i.e., Guyana, Taiwan, and Mexico). Rounds and Tracey (1996) conducted another meta-analysis using 73 U.S. samples, 20 ethnic minority samples in the United States, and 76 studies from 18 non-U.S. countries. Results revealed that Holland’s model failed to hold across countries, including countries culturally similar to the United States, such as Canada and Australia. In contrast, Gati’s model was supported for the United States and non-U.S. datasets.

Despite the favorable evidence for Gati’s hierarchical model, research following this meta-analysis has focused on Holland’s model instead (for exceptions, see Einarsdóttir, Rounds, Ægisdóttir, & Gerstein, 2002 and Hedrih, 2008). These recent results regarding the fit of RIASEC have been mixed, including supportive evidence from Indian (Leong, Austin, Sekaran, & Komarraju, 1998) and Serbian samples (Hedrih, 2008), as well as unsupportive evidence from mainland China or Hong Kong (Goh, 2001; Tang, 2001, 2009; Yang, Stokes, & Hui, 2005), Japan (Long, Watanabe, & Tracey, 2006), the Philippines (Primavera et al. 2010), and Iceland (Einarsdóttir, Rounds, & Su, 2010). Likewise, Gati’s model has also received favorable results from the Icelandic sample (Einarsdóttir et al., 2002) and unfavorable results from the Serbian sample (Hedrih, 2008). These findings suggest that prior knowledge regarding the fit of the two theoretical models may need to be qualified by the cultures in which the models are examined, and cultural differences might alter the structure of vocational interests.

Rounds and Tracey (1996) pointed out the necessity to specify the causes of these cross-cultural differences in interest structure and speculated that economic development and cultural values can moderate the correlations among interests. For instance, in individualistic cultures that value individual decisions (Hofstede, 1980, 2001), Artistic stood out as a unique type of interest rather than clustering with other interests as specified by the circular or hierarchical models. In addition, because interests are typically measured based on occupations, national differences in tasks, work roles, and work contexts within occupations may also explain some structural differences in vocational interests. When taking into account the within-country variations, individuals’ conformity to the national cultural values can explain the lack of fit to a theoretical structure. For instance, a cross-cultural study of college freshmen from Hong Kong and the United States indicated that only part of Holland’s model fit well with students’ responses (except A and S), and the fit was poor for students who endorsed traditional values (Farh, Leong, & Law, 1998). Therefore, cultural values are critical for explaining why these cross-cultural differences may have occurred.

Additional Dimensions of Vocational Interests

Besides Holland’s circular model and Gati’s hierarchical model, Tracey and Rounds (1996a, 1996b) expanded Holland’s model to a three-dimensional, spherical structure by adding another prestige dimension. They suggested that prestige captures self-assessment of abilities and desired occupational culture, and it explained meaningful variance in vocational interests in a U.S. college student sample. Similar improvement in structural variance explained by prestige was also found in Japanese (Long et al., 2006), Serbian (Hedrih, 2008), and Icelandic (Einarsdóttir et al., 2010) samples. However, some structural dissimilarities between American and Japanese college students on this additional dimension imply distinctive views of prestige across cultures (Tracey, Watanabe, & Schneider, 1997). Specifically, Japanese workers often derive a perception of prestige from affiliations with specific organizations rather than certain occupations.

Sex-type of occupations is another dimension, which explains more variance in vocational interests than prestige (Einarsdóttir & Rounds, 2000). While not overlapping with prestige (Sodano & Tracey, 2008), sex-type is highly correlated with people-things in an Icelandic sample (Einarsdóttir et al., 2010), whereas the same relation tends to be weaker in the United States (Su, Rounds, & Armstrong, 2009). Thus, culture appears to influence various underlying dimensions of vocational interests.

Cross-Cultural Measurement

Meanwhile, measurement validation research also started to proliferate in other languages, such as in Dutch (Evers, 1995), French (Segal, 1995), Chinese (Fang, Bai, & Ling, 1996; Goh, 2001), Japanese (Tracey et al., 1997), Spanish (Glidden-Tracey & Greenwood, 1997), and Icelandic (Einarsdóttir et al., 2002). Most of the measures (i.e., Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, and Icelandic) were developed based on Holland’s RIASEC model. As an exception, Einarsdóttir, Eyjólfsdóttir, and Rounds (2013) took an emic approach and used the occupational descriptions published in Iceland to develop an indigenous measurement of interests. Some studies also examined cross-cultural or cross-language structural invariance of the measurement on the basis of adopting back translation procedures for enhancing linguistic equivalence (Glidden-Tracey & Greenwood, 1997; Goh, 2001; Tracey et al., 1997). The methodology adopted by these authors provided an exemplar practice of the cross-cultural/language validation of the measurement. In addition to testing dimension-level invariance across cultures and languages, examining differential item functioning (DIF), or a lack of item-level invariance, can be informative about cultural differences in occupations. However, DIF and its potential contribution to the lack of dimension-level invariance can invalidate the cultural comparisons of interests (Church et al., 2011).

Individual Differences and Vocational Interests

Sex/Gender

Shortly after World War II, the United States began to shift from segregation to promoting equality of various social groups in the workplace (Katzell & Austin, 1992). However, the long-lasting stereotypes associated with sex/gender, race, and other socioeconomic factors continued to influence vocational interests held by individuals from different demographic backgrounds. In particular, sex has been considered as one of the most relevant demographic variables in relation to vocational interests, due to the sex-type dimension of occupations (Einarsdóttir & Rounds, 2000).

The developmental theory of occupational aspirations (Gottfredson, 1981) suggests that sex affects the extent to which an individual perceives a particular occupation to be compatible with and accessible to oneself, and this perception is a critical determinant for vocational interests. Su and colleagues (2009) meta-analyzed U.S. and Canadian studies published from 1964 to 2007, and their overall results revealed higher levels of Realistic (d = 0.84) and Investigative (d = 0.26) interests (or things), as well as lower levels of Artistic (d = −0.35), Social (d = −0.68), and Conventional (d = −0.33) interests (or people) among men compared to women. A more recent meta-analysis of gender differences of interests in specific STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) disciplines confirmed men’s higher interests in things (i.e., engineering, ds = 0.83−1.21) and women’s higher interest in people (i.e., social services, d = −0.33; medical service, d = −0.40; Su & Rounds, 2015). These two meta-analyses suggest that the unbalanced gender representations in the higher end of the distribution of each interest might have contributed to the sex disparities in actual occupational choices.

As society progresses, Betz, Heesacker, and Shuttleworth (1990) noted that women in the United States were increasingly aware of various career options. Supporting this increasing gender egalitarianism in the United States, a meta-analysis of studies from 1976 to 2004 revealed a decrease in sex differences in interests, including women’s growing interests in Enterprising occupations and men’s decreased interests in Realistic and Investigative occupations (Bubany & Hansen, 2011). Likewise, the meta-analysis conducted by Su et al. (2009) showed that the sex differences on the Artistic and Enterprising interests, as well as the data-ideas dimension, were smaller in younger cohorts (Su et al., 2009). On the contrary, Su and colleagues found that sex differences in STEM interests seem to persist over time. Research continues to support the substantial effect of sex on vocational interests in the United States across different racial/ethnic groups (Fouad, 2002; Leuty & Hansen, 2014; Rosenbloom, Ash, Dupont, & Coder, 2008). This sex effect is even noticeable within occupations. For example, male physician assistants were found to have considerably higher Realistic interests than their female counterparts (LaBarbera, 2005).

Cross-cultural Research on Interests and Sex/Gender

Researchers have observed decreasing, yet persistent sex differences in non-U.S. countries over the years as well. In a German college student sample obtained in 1990, men preferred majors related to things whereas women preferred majors related to people, resulting in limited representation of women in STEM disciplines (Pässler & Hell, 2012). College women in Switzerland, Austria, and Taiwan also showed lower interests in Realistic occupations and higher interests in Artistic and Social occupations (Proyer & Häusler, 2007; Tien, 2011). Paessler (2015) pointed out that sex differences in the variability of interests also partly contribute to the mean-level differences. Using two large samples of over 110,000 total respondents from Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, Paessler found large variations in Realistic and Enterprising interests for men, as well as Artistic and Conventional interests for women. In particular, there was a large ratio of men to women who score high on Realistic interests (5% tail ratio = 7:1) and things (5% tail ratio = 10:1). In contrast, women’s representation in the top 5% of Artistic and Social interests was four times of men’s representation. However, the increasing variability in younger adults’ interests (i.e., R, A, and S) reflects the decreasing nature of sex differences in interests.

This movement toward decreasing sex disparities in different occupations in many countries implies that gender egalitarian values increase over time across different cultures, which may result in attenuated sex differences in interests in more recent studies. Therefore, we suggest that comparisons of sex differences in vocational interests should incorporate a temporal factor. Research has also indicated the complexity of the moderating role of gender egalitarianism on sex differences in interests, such that women and men may be more encouraged to embrace their preferred interests in egalitarian countries; therefore, sex differences in interests may be exacerbated in a different fashion as a society becomes more gender egalitarian (Ott-Holland, Huang, Ryan, Elizondo, & Wadlington, 2013). Based on a sample of approximately 400,000 workers obtained between 2001 and 2009, Ott-Holland et al. found that when gender egalitarianism (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004) increases, there are lower sex differences in musical (ideas) and persuasive (people) interests, but higher sex differences in clerical (data) and scientific (things) interests, supporting the intricate role played by this cultural dimension.

Taken together, gender egalitarianism is a critical cultural moderator on the relationship between sex and vocational interests, and the direction of moderation can be complex. Beyond biological sex, researchers have also attended to how gender role orientation and sexual orientation are related to interests, suggesting some plausible positive effects of femininity-orientation (Betz et al., 1990; Pozzebon, Visser, & Bogaert, 2015) and male homosexuality (Ellis, Ratnasingam, & Wheeler, 2012) on female-typed occupations. As discussed above, the dynamic nature of gender egalitarian values in different societies needs to be considered when drawing inferences over time. Another unique challenge of studying sex differences is the violation of measurement invariance between men and women, which has been repeatedly found in studies across different countries (e.g., Proyer & Häusler, 2007; Tang, 2001)

Ability

Based on Holland’s (1959, 1973, 1985) descriptions of vocational interests and theoretical propositions, vocational interests can be linked to cognitive abilities, both in terms of general intelligence (g) and specific cognitive abilities. Investigative interests were argued to be positively related to g (Holland, 1973, 1985, 1997). In addition, Holland (1959, 1973) posited that Realistic interests should be associated with mechanical abilities and (low) social skills, whereas Investigative interests should be related to numerical abilities and induction. In a qualitative review, Ackerman and Heggestad (1997) reported some general patterns regarding the interests-abilities associations: (a) Realistic interests were positively correlated with math, spatial, and mechanical abilities; (b) Investigative interests were positively correlated with math, spatial, mechanical, and verbal abilities; (c) Artistic interests were positively associated with verbal abilities; (d) Social interests negatively corresponded to mathematical and spatial abilities; (e) Enterprising interests were negatively correlated with cognitive abilities; and (f) Conventional interests were negatively related to cognitive abilities (except for perceptual speed and numerical abilities). Using O^⋆NET’ ratings, Anthoney and Armstrong (2010) found that the quantitative evidence generally supported these patterns with some exceptions. For instance, Realistic interests were negatively related to verbal abilities, and Investigative interests were negatively related to spatial orientation.

Ability may also be integrated as a dimension of interests. Armstrong, Day, McVay, and Rounds (2008) found that cognitive complexity required by the occupational activity was strongly associated with numerous ability components, such as oral and written comprehension, oral and written expression, and mathematical reasoning. They also argued for a correspondence between the complexity dimension and occupational prestige. Future work can continue examining the ability-interests link from this integrative approach.

Based on Holland’s assumptions and Ackerman and Heggestad’s review, Pässler, Beinicke, and Hell’s (2015) meta-analysis (k = 29, N = 55,297) revealed meaningful relationships between vocational interests and both g and specific cognitive abilities (see Table 11.1). Investigative (ρ = .28), Realistic (ρ = .23), Social (ρ = −.19), and Enterprising (ρ = −.08) interests all shared significant correlations with g, whereas relationships between g and Artistic and Conventional interests were negligible. With regard to specific cognitive abilities, Realistic interests were significantly correlated with spatial abilities (ρ = .34), numerical abilities (ρ = .26), mechanical knowledge (ρ = .31), and induction (ρ = .13); Investigative interests were associated with verbal (ρ = .21), spatial abilities (ρ = .27), numerical abilities (ρ = .25), induction (ρ = .22), and mechanical knowledge (ρ = .17); Artistic interests were correlated with verbal abilities (ρ = .22) and numerical abilities (ρ = −.18); Social interests were related to mechanical knowledge (ρ = −.28), spatial abilities (ρ = −.22), and numerical abilities (ρ = −.21); Enterprising interests were associated with spatial abilities (ρ = −.13) and mechanical knowledge (ρ = −.14). Conventional interests did not share any meaningful correlations with specific cognitive abilities. In sum, the meta-analytical findings revealed small to medium relationships between vocational interests and cognitive abilities.

TABLE 11.1 Summary of Relationships Between RIASEC and Abilities

Cross-cultural Research on Interests and Abilities

We identified five studies that examined the interest-ability relationship in countries other than the United States (one in Australia, one in Austria, and three in Germany). An overview of the results is summarized in Table 11.1. Based on two samples in Australia, Carless (1999) identified weak to moderate positive relationships between Investigative interests and cognitive abilities (general abilities as well as verbal and numeric abilities), as well as negative relationships between Conventional interests and verbal abilities. Proyer (2006) studied the interest-ability relationship in a sample of 138 individuals from Austria. Results indicated that there was a positive relationship between spatial ability and both Realistic and Investigative interests.

Of the three studies conducted in Germany, Mussel (2013) examined the relationships between cognitive ability and vocational interests in a sample of 250 individuals. Results showed that both Intellectual-Scientific and Entrepreneurial interests were positively related to cognitive ability. However, with a relatively small sample size, the findings may have limited generalizability.

In contrast, the other two studies conducted in Germany were based on larger samples. Based on 1,990 students and alumni from universities, Pässler and Hell (2012) found that (a) both Realistic and Investigative interests were related to verbal, numerical, and spatial abilities, (b) Artistic interests were positively correlated with verbal and negatively correlated with numerical and spatial abilities, (c) Social interests were negatively related to verbal, numerical, and spatial abilities, (d) Enterprising interests were negatively related to verbal and spatial abilities, and (e) Conventional interests were positively associated with numerical abilities. Using another sample of students from Germany (N = 4,487), Vock, Köller, and Nagy (2013) demonstrated that high realistic, investigative, and artistic interests and low social and economic interests were significantly related to intelligence.

Personality

Although earlier research led to the conclusion that correlations between interests and personality traits were modest at best (Hansen, 1984), several meaningful relationships have since emerged in the literature. With regard to the Big Five personality traits (Digman, 1990), the most notable relationships identified by past meta-analyses (Barrick, Mount, & Gupta, 2003; Larson, Rottinghaus, & Borgen, 2002; see Table 11.2) and reviews (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Ashton & Lee, 2007; Holland, 1997) are: (a) Investigative interests with openness to experience, (b) Artistic interests with openness to experience, (c) Social interests with extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience, (d) Enterprising interests with extraversion, and (e) Conventional interests with conscientiousness.

TABLE 11.2 Summary of Relationships Between RIASEC and Personality Traits

Researchers have argued that a further examination at lower order traits may increase the variance accounted for in vocational interests (e.g., Costa, McCrae, & Kay, 1995; Larson & Borgen, 2002; Staggs, Larson, & Borgen, 2003). For instance, Sullivan and Hansen (2004) found that several relationships between interests and higher order personality traits can be largely accounted for by the associations between interests and lower order personality traits: Warmth and assertiveness (facets of extraversion) accounted for the relationships extraversion shared with Social interests and Enterprising interests, respectively, while Aesthetics (a facet of openness to experience) accounted for the association between Artistic interests and openness to experience.

Using a neuro-biologically based approach, Hansen, Sullivan, and Luciana (2011) proposed a social neuroscientific model of the processes underlying vocational interests and examined the affective and motivational aspects of personality with vocational interests. Results showed that Social and Enterprising interests were positively associated with approach temperament (positive emotionality, extraversion, and behavioral activation scale), thus supporting the notion that interests might be driven by individual differences in the approach system.

Cross-cultural Research on Interests and Personality

Several studies have been conducted to examine the linkages between vocational interests and personality traits in countries other than the United States (see Table 11.2). van der Zee, Zaal, and Piekstra (2003) examined the relationships between vocational interests and personality in a sample of job applicants (n = 264) from the Netherlands and Belgium. The authors mapped the vocational interests they measured onto Holland’s Social, Enterprising, Artistic interests and an additional factor of Managerial interests. Results suggested that (a) Social interests were positively related to agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness to experience, (b) Enterprising interests were positively related to extraversion, (c) Artistic interests were negatively related to conscientiousness, and (d) Managerial interests were negatively associated with neuroticism. The findings regarding Social and Enterprising interests were largely comparable with the interests-personality relationships identified from past reviews based on U.S. samples, whereas the relationships regarding Social/Managerial interests with neuroticism and Artistic with conscientiousness were inconsistent with the patterns from research in the United States.

In a large student sample (n = 1,463) from Germany, Henoch, Klusmann, Lüdtke, and Trautwein (2015) identified the following interest-personality associations that were unique from the meta-analytical findings summarized earlier: (a) Artistic interests were positively correlated with neuroticism, and (b) Social interests were positively associated with conscientiousness. Based on two working samples in Australia, Carless (1999) found similar vocational interest-personality associations based on research conducted in the United States, except for (a) a negative relationship between Social interests and neuroticism for males and (b) a positive relationship between Enterprising interests and conscientiousness for both females and males. In a Dutch sample (n = 656), Holtrop, Born, and de Vries (2015) largely replicated relationships between interests and personality traits that have been previously found in meta-analyses. The relations between neuroticism and RIASEC dimensions found in these non-U.S. studies are generally not supported in U.S. samples, which could be due to a substantive cross-cultural difference, or measurement nonequivalence, or both.

There has been limited cross-cultural research that directly focused on the substantive moderating effect of culture on the interest-personality association. Focusing on in-group collectivism, Ott-Holland et al. (2013) argued that individuals in collectivistic cultures might (a) focus more on group goals rather than personal goals, and (b) pursue vocations that meet family needs. Therefore, personality should have less impact on vocational interests in these cultures. Based on a sample of approximately 400,000 workers obtained between 2001 and 2009, Ott-Holland et al. (2013) confirmed that the relationships between occupational interests and personality traits were generally weaker in cultures with high in-group collectivism (based on the GLOBE ratings of in-group collectivism).

Self-efficacy

Introducing Bandura’s (1977) theory of self-efficacy to vocational psychology, a substantial amount of research has been conducted to investigate the relationship between vocational interests and self-efficacy constructs, as well as how they relate to occupational and career outcomes.

Discussion on the causal linkages between vocational interests and self-efficacy has been largely informed by the social-cognitive career theory (SCCT; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994, 2000), which suggests that vocational interests derive from the confluence of self-efficacy and outcome expectations. However, while some evidence from longitudinal and experimental studies supports the causal direction from self-efficacy to interests (e.g., Betz & Schifano, 2000; Campbell & Hackett, 1986; Luzzo, Hasper, Albert, Bibby, & Martinelli, 1999), other studies suggest a reverse directionality from interests to self-efficacy (Bonitz, Larson, & Armstrong, 2010; Nauta, Kahn, Angell, & Cantarelli, 2002). One particular challenge on this topic is the substantial relationship between vocational interests and self-efficacy. Armstrong and Vogel (2009) offered evidence that indicates interests and self-efficacy should both serve as indicators for the RIASEC types, suggesting interests and self-efficacy are merely method factors. However, by reanalyzing earlier data from Armstrong and Vogel (2009), Lent, Sheu, and Brown (2010) reached a different conclusion that interests and self-efficacy are related yet distinct constructs.

Linking interests and career self-efficacy to vocational outcomes, researchers have studied and found that career self-efficacy can provide incremental validity in predicting occupational and educational outcomes above and beyond vocational interests (e.g., see Betz, Borgen, & Harmon, 2006; Rottinghaus, Larson, & Borgen, 2003; Tracey & Hopkins, 2001), suggesting that the two should be considered jointly for career assessment and counseling. As important factors in career planning activities, both self-efficacy and interests should be assessed, and interventions are needed if self-efficacy is too low to match a high level of interest (Bonitz et al., 2010; Nauta et al., 2002). Nauta and colleagues, in particular, discussed verbal persuasion, vicarious learning, and mastery experience as viable interventions for improving self-efficacy in career counseling, especially for encouraging women and minorities’ participation in STEM disciplines.

Cross-cultural research on interests and self-efficacy

We identified only one study outside of the United States that focused on vocational interests and career self-efficacy. In a group of 301 Japanese university students, Adachi (2004) found positive associations between vocational interests and career self-efficacy, but the magnitudes of the relationships were generally smaller (rs ranging from .18 to .40) compared to those reported in meta-analyses (r−s ranging from .50 to .71; Rottinghaus et al., 2003; Sheu et al., 2010).

Vocational Outcomes

Satisfaction

Consistent with person-environment fit theory (Edwards, 1991), congruence (see Holland, 1959) between an individual’s interests and his/her job environment contributes to job and career outcomes (e.g., De Fruyt, 2002; Rottinghaus, Hees, & Conrath, 2009; Wille, Tracey, Feys, & De Fruyt, 2014; Young, Tokar, & Subich, 1998). However, several meta-analyses have yielded positive yet nonsignificant relationships between overall interest congruence and job satisfaction (Assouline & Meir, 1987; Tranberg, Slane, & Ekeberg, 1993; Tsabari, Tziner, & Meir, 2005). Spokane, Meir, and Catalano (2000) speculated that congruence might be “a sufficient, though not a necessary, condition for job satisfaction” (p. 137).

Focusing on vocational interests as predictors of job satisfaction, Rottinghaus et al. (2009) combined and examined the predictive validity of Holland’s six interest dimensions (measured by the Holland General Occupational Themes; GOTs) and basic interests (measured by the Basic Interest Scales; BISs) on satisfaction in 22 independent occupational samples (n = 9,647). Results suggested that Holland’s six interest dimensions significantly distinguished the grouping between satisfied and dissatisfied workers.

In conclusion, the relationships between vocational interests and satisfaction and between interest congruence and satisfaction are generally weak or nonexistent with substantial variance across congruence indices, measures of interests, study settings, and research methodologies. Further advancement in research methodology and investigations of moderators (e.g., culture) are warranted to gain a better understanding of these relationships.

Cross-cultural Research on Interests and Satisfaction

In their meta-analysis, Tsabari et al. (2005) investigated the difference in mean correlations between interests congruence and satisfaction between the United States (k = 29) and Israel (k = 9). Results showed that the congruence-satisfaction linkage was stronger in Israel (r− = 0.23, CI = 0.01 to 0.44) than in the United States (r− = 0.13, CI = −0.02 to 0.27), although there was considerable heterogeneity in both cultures. The authors argued that the difference, albeit inconclusive, might be explained by the difference in the cultural dimension of in-group collectivism (d = .17, based on the GLOBE ratings of in-group collectivism) between the two cultures. Particularly, in cultures with relatively low in-group collectivism (e.g., the United States), individuals might be exposed to more employment opportunities, and other personal factors may influence job satisfaction than congruence alone. In comparison, job satisfaction might be more predictable in cultures where there is a moderate level of in-group collectivism, like Israel.

Job and Career Outcomes

Vocational interests have been theorized to influence job performance and turnover in two ways. First, a high level of congruence between one’s interests and job characteristics will likely lead to satisfaction and commitment, which subsequently result in high performance and low turnover (Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager, 1993; Holland, 1973, 1997). Second, interests drive individuals to acquire and develop job-relevant knowledge and skills, which enable them to perform better on the job (e.g., Ackerman, 1996; Barrick et al., 2003; Lent et al., 1994; Sullivan & Hansen, 2004). Meta-analytic evidence has been supportive of the positive relationships between interests and job performance, training performance, organizational citizenship behavior, counterproductive work behavior, persistence, job level attained, tenure, and turnover (Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Nye et al., 2012; Van Iddekinge, Roth, Putka, & Lanivich, 2011). More criterion variance can be accounted for when using interests that are theoretically more relevant to the jobs (Van Iddekinge, Roth et al., 2011), or when congruence indices are used instead of interest scores alone (Nye et al., 2012). In a selection context, a concurrent validation project within the U.S. Army showed that specific RIASEC dimensions shared small to moderate correlations with job knowledge, interpersonal job knowledge, job performance, and continuance intentions above and beyond cognitive ability and personality traits (Van Iddekinge, Putka, & Campbell, 2011).

Vocational interests are related to career-related outcomes, such as educational choices, occupational choices, career indecision, career mobility, and income. Vocational interests can incrementally predict educational-occupational choices beyond cognitive abilities (Lubinski & Benbow, 2006). Individuals with high Realistic, Enterprising, and/or Conventional interests are more likely to be indecisive about their careers (Burns, Morris, Rousseau, & Taylor, 2013). With regard to career mobility, Enterprising interests were more likely to change jobs in general (internally and externally). Meanwhile, external job changes (across employers) were predicted by Investigative, Artistic, and (low) Conventional interests, whereas internal job changes (within an employer) were predicted by Realistic interests (Wille, De Fruyt, & Feys, 2010). Moreover, based on data from 665 occupations obtained from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and O^⋆Net, Huang and Pearce (2013) showed that all six RIASEC dimensions were significantly correlated with annual income and the occupation level (with the relationships for I and C being negative). In addition, Investigative, Enterprising, and Realistic interests also emerged as the most important predictors for annual income based on relative weight analysis (LeBreton, Hargis, Griepentrog, Oswald, & Ployhart, 2007).

Cross-cultural Research on Interests and Job/Career Outcomes

Linking vocational interests congruence to job related outcomes, Meir, Esformes, and Friedland (1994) showed that vocational interests congruence was predictive of job stability and job performance (supervisor rated) a year later in an Israeli sample. When the findings were broken down based on gender and occupational field, however, significant relationships were only present for males in Business and Technology fields, and not for either males or females in the Organizational field. These findings suggested that there might be unique factors in the Organizational field (e.g., promotion opportunities impacting job stability) that contributed to job stability and performance other than vocational interests. In a sample of 272 German job apprentices in the food industry, Marcus and Wagner (2015) demonstrated that subjective congruence was predictive of only self-rated job performance, but not supervisory job performance ratings. In addition, objective congruence (where experts provided ratings on the work environment) was not related to either self- or supervisor-rated job performance.

In a sample of graduating college students in Belgium, de Fruyt and Mervielde (1999) conducted a longitudinal study linking vocational interests to employment status and employment nature. Results demonstrated that although Enterprising and Conventional interests were positively associated with employment status, they did not add incremental validity above and beyond personality traits. Meanwhile, the RIASEC types outperformed personality in predicting the nature of employment, suggesting that people are more likely to be attracted to and select jobs that match their interests.

In a cross-cultural study, Fan, Cheung, Leong, and Cheung (2012) used two university student samples in the United States (n = 369) and Hong Kong (n = 392) and found that Enterprising interests mediated the relationship between social potency and career exploration in the Hong Kong sample, whereas Artistic interests mediated the same relationship in the American sample, suggesting different processes in which personality affects career exploration across the two cultures. Particularly, the differential mediating mechanisms might be explained by the differences in environmental context. Given the substantial influence of the financial and commercial industries in Hong Kong, university students might be exposed to more opportunities than their American counterparts to develop interests that are business and entrepreneurial related. At the same time, there is a cultural tendency for Chinese parents to discourage career options that involve artistic interests, whereas American students might have more freedom to explore diverse career opportunities based on their creative nature.

Vocational interests have also been investigated as antecedents of educational and occupational choices in China, Germany, and Portugal. Based on a student sample collected in China, Song and Chon (2012) showed that vocational interests predicted person-job fit, which subsequently impacted choice goals (i.e., intention to work in the corresponding industry). In addition, the influence of vocational interests on choice goals was mediated by person-job fit. In a sample of 1,463 students from Germany, Henoch and colleagues (2015) found evidence that supports the predictive validity of vocational interests for major and career choices. In particular, students with higher Investigative and Realistic interests and lower Artistic and Social interests were more likely to choose STEM majors. While students enrolled in teacher education had higher Social and lower Realistic and Investigative interests, Social interests had the highest relative predictive validity compared to other interest dimensions in predicting one’s decision to become a teacher candidate. In a sample of psychology students in Portugal, Ferreira, Rodrigues, and Costa Ferreira (2015) found that the RIASEC types were related to choices of going into organizational, educational, and clinical psychology fields.

Toward a Globalized Knowledge Base on Vocational Interests

Our review above suggests that, to a large degree, research on vocational interests has not stayed abreast of globalization. Instead, the review of extant research offered a glimpse of potential universal and cultural-specific phenomena related to vocational interests and highlighted the clear need for more research on vocational interests in non-U.S. countries. In this section, we offer three approaches researchers can consider in their efforts to explicate culture as a potential boundary factor that affects the measurement and utilization of vocational interests across the globe. Although not mutually exclusive, these approaches represent different likely scenarios that scholars may encounter to expand vocational interest research beyond the etic assumption.

In the first approach, researchers can continue to examine the cultural validity of vocational interest theories outside of the typical Anglo cultures. When generalizing the existing model of interests to non-Anglo cultures and conducting cross-cultural comparisons, measurement equivalence is necessary to ensure that the cross-cultural generalization and comparison is meaningful. Addressing this methodological challenge, Church et al. (2011) recommended that researchers examine differential item functioning (DIF) by conducting a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for every pair of cultures and test potential differences in DIF loading and intercepts at the item- and scale-levels. Besides generalizing Anglo-based theories to broader cultures, we call for a more proactive research strategy: In addition to testing cultural validity of existing theories, researchers can consider whether constructs stemming from a local culture can influence the development and consequences of vocational interest. This notion of testing the cultural specificity of indigenous constructs (Leong & Brown, 1995) will allow researchers to develop theories on vocational interests that are closely grounded in the local culture while acknowledging potentially universal aspects. For instance, Einarsdóttir et al. (2010) examined the structure of vocational interests in Iceland and identified two additional interest dimensions (finance/persuation and natural science). After removing the constraints of the RIASEC model, research may be able to reveal some qualitatively different components of vocational interests across cultures. Another illustration was provided by Leong, Huang, and Mak (2014) who demonstrated the cultural validity of the Protestant Work Ethic and the cultural specificity of Confucian values in predicting job satisfaction and organizational commitment in Singapore. As Confucianism has influenced the culture and ideology of several East Asia countries, one can conjecture the effects of Confucian values on vocational interests. For instance, Confucian emphasis on life-long learning and development may be positively associated with investigative interests. Furthermore, it is plausible that the Confucian value of harmony can attenuate the expected relationship between congruence and job satisfaction, as individuals espousing harmony values may attach greater significance to their coworkers and less so to the jobs they work on.

If the expected cultural validity is not supported in a particular study, we caution against the tendency to attribute the result to a particular dimension of the local culture. For instance, if a vocational interest study in South Korea yields a different finding than in the United States, one might be tempted to conclude that collectivism (high in South Korea and low in the United States) served as a moderator for the expected effect. However, the risk of such an attribution is, because two cultures can differ in a number of ways, one is unable to rule out alternative explanations (see van de Vijver & Leung, 2000). It should be recognized that the difference observed between two cultures, such as in the example above between South Korea and the United States, could have been caused by other cultural variables (such as power distance) instead. Because of this concern, researchers should, whenever possible, directly measure the underlying psychological mechanism that contributes to cultural difference (Okazaki & Sue, 1995).

In the second scenario, researchers can obtain data from multiple countries, and thus can utilize existing measures of cultural differences at the country level. Hofstede (1980) developed an early taxonomy of cultural dimensions, which were expanded later in Project GLOBE (House et al., 2004) in a 62-nation study. Specifically, GLOBE provides scores of cultures on nine dimensions, including performance orientation, future orientation, gender egalitarianism, assertiveness, institutional collectivism, in-group collectivism, power distance, humane orientation, and uncertainty avoidance (see Table 11.3). Although it is still advisable to collect data on the psychological mechanisms that lead to cross-cultural differences, imposing the existing scores at the country level can be advantageous when individual data collections are not feasible. Prior to the availability of GLOBE cultural scores, Rounds and Tracey (1996) identified cultural ratings for 13 countries from Hofstede (1980) and found that the individualism-collectivism dimension, but not the masculinity-femininity dimension, could explain differences in the fit of the RIASEC model among 13 countries. Similarly, when researchers utilize archival cross-cultural data, they assume the GLOBE cultural scores can provide meaningful analysis at the country/region level (e.g., Ott-Holland et al., 2013). It is also possible that researchers may utilize GLOBE scores in conjunction with their primary data collection to help rule out competing explanations.

TABLE 11.3 GLOBE Cultural Dimensions (House et al., 1999, p. 25)

An important, yet often overlooked issue in the assessment of vocational interest theories across cultures is appropriate sampling. Researchers often rely on convenient samples to represent cultures, making an inferential leap in such a representation. In cross-cultural research on vocational interests, sampling error can come into play in two focal areas. First, individuals selected in a particular sample may not reflect the population in a given culture. As Chao and Moon (2005) noted, each individual may possess distinct cultural identities that reflect the unique influences of culture on that person. If a particular sample differs from the overall population in terms of cultural beliefs, values, and identities, one may be making a flawed inference from the sample to the population. Second, the sample in question may differ from the population in vocational interests. For instance, a convenient sample of undergraduate students from a private college may not represent the broader population of undergraduate students in the country. Taken together, ensuring the samples represent the populations of interest can allow researchers to draw valid inferences at the culture level of analysis.

In the third approach, researchers can track expatriate and sojourners during their adjustment process. Although much research has been conducted to understand how individuals experience changes and adjust to a new culture (e.g., Bhaskar-Shrinivas, Harrison, Shaffer, & Luk, 2005), little is known about potential changes in vocational interests during the adjustment process. Unique from other individual dispositions like personality, interests are highly contextualized and always directed toward an object (Rounds & Su, 2014). Therefore, opportunity to experience an activity in a certain cultural context can facilitate the development of interests. As sojourners and expatriates are under the confluence of two cultures—the home country culture that they are accustomed with, and the new host country’s culture that they start to acculturate to—researchers can not only hypothesize the influence of a certain cultural variable, but also study the influence as it unfolds over time using methods such as growth modeling. For instance, applying growth modeling to study changes in extraversion in international students who newly arrived in the United States, Liu and Huang (2015) showed that increase of extraversion within the school context is associated with better cross-cultural adjustment. Using the same technique to investigate changes in vocational interest, researchers may identify changes in interests due to cross-cultural experience and model correlates of such changes. For example, one may examine whether sojourners from India, a country that highly emphasizes engineering education (Banerjee & Muley, 2008), would experience changes in vocational interests after prolonged experience in the United States; further, interindividual difference in changes in interests may predict vocational outcomes such as career satisfaction. Questions concerning cross-cultural changes should be adequately addressed before vocational interests can be used to select individuals for cross-cultural assignments.

Summary and Conclusions

In this chapter, we provided a review of cross-cultural vocational interest research, particularly focusing on the structure of vocational interests, the relationships between individual differences and vocational interests, and the associations between interests and vocational outcomes. We also discussed three likely approaches that researchers may utilize to examine culture as a boundary condition for vocational interests’ development and effects. With in-depth cross-cultural research, vocational interests can become a valuable tool for organizations to assess, understand, and manage human capital across national and cultural boundaries.

References

1. Ackerman, P. L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, personality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22, 227–257.

2. Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.

3. Adachi, T. (2004). Career self-efficacy, career outcome expectations and vocational interests among Japanese university students. Psychological Reports, 95, 89–100.

4. Anthoney, S. F., & Armstrong, P. I. (2010). Individuals and environments: Linking ability and skill ratings with interests. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 36–51.

5. Armstrong, P. I., Day, S. X., McVay, J. P., & Rounds, J. (2008). Holland’s RIASEC model as an integrative framework for individual differences. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 1–18.

6. Armstrong, P. I., & Vogel, D. L. (2009). Interpreting the interest-efficacy association from a RIASEC perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 392–407.

7. Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 150–166.

8. Assouline, M., & Meir, E. I. (1987). Meta-analysis of the relationship between congruence and well-being measures. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 319–332.

9. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.

10. Banerjee, R., & Muley, V. P. (2008). Engineering education in India. Mumbai, India: Indian Institute of Technology Bombay.

11. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Gupta, R. (2003). Meta-analysis of the relationship between the five-factor model of personality and Holland’s occupational types. Personnel Psychology, 56, 45–74.

12. Betz, N. E., Borgen, F. H., & Harmon, L. W. (2006). Vocational confidence and personality in the prediction of occupational group membership. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 36–55.

13. Betz, N. E., Heesacker, R. S., & Shuttleworth, C. (1990). Moderators of the congruence and realism of major and occupational plans in college students: A replication and extension. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 269–276.

14. Betz, N. E., & Schifano, R. S. (2000). Evaluation of an intervention to increase realistic self-efficacy and interests in college women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 35–52.

15. Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P., Harrison, D. A., Shaffer, M. A., & Luk, D. M. (2005). Input-based and time-based models of international adjustment: Meta-analytic evidence and theoretical extensions. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 257–281.

16. Bonitz, V. S., Larson, L. M., & Armstrong, P. I. (2010). Interests, self-efficacy, and choice goals: An experimental manipulation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 223–233.

17. Bubany, S. T., & Hansen, J.-I. C. (2011). Birth cohort change in the vocational interests of female and male college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 59–67.

18. Burns, G. N., Morris, M. B., Rousseau, N., & Taylor, J. (2013). Personality, interests, and career indecision: A multidimensional perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 2090–2099.

19. Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35–70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

20. Campbell, N. K., & Hackett, G. (1986). The effects of mathematics task performance on math self-efficacy and task interest. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 28, 149–162.

21. Carless, S. A. (1999). Career assessment: Holland’s vocational interests, personality characteristics, and abilities. Journal of Career Assessment, 7, 125–144.

22. Chao, G. T., & Moon, H. (2005). The cultural mosaic: A metatheory for understanding the complexity of culture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1128–1140.

23. Church, A. T., Alvarez, J. M., Mai, N. T., French, B. F., Katigbak, M. S., & Ortiz, F. A. (2011). Are cross-cultural comparisons of personality profiles meaningful? Differential item and facet functioning in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1068–1089.

24. Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Kay, G. G. (1995). Persons, places, and personality: Career assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 3, 123–139.

25. De Fruyt, F. (2002). A person-centered approach to P-E fit questions using a multiple-trait model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 73–90.

26. De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (1999). RIASEC types and Big Five traits as predictors of employment status and nature of employment. Personnel Psychology, 52, 701–727.

27. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.

28. Donnay, D. A. C., & Borgen, F. H. (1996). Validity, structure, and content of the 1994 Strong Interest Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 275–291.

29. Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 283–357). New York: Wiley.

30. Einarsdóttir, S., Eyjólfsdóttir, K. Ó., & Rounds, J. (2013). Development of indigenous basic interest scales: Re-structuring the Icelandic interest space. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82, 105–115.

31. Einarsdóttir, S., & Rounds, J. (2000). Application of three dimensions of vocational interests to the Strong Interest Inventory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 363–379.

32. Einarsdóttir, S., Rounds, J., Ægisdóttir, S., & Gerstein, L. H. (2002). The structure of vocational interests in Iceland: Examining Holland’s and Gati’s RIASEC models. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18, 85–95.

33. Einarsdóttir, S., Rounds, J., & Su, R. (2010). Holland in Iceland revisited: An emic approach to evaluating U.S. vocational interest models. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 361–367.

34. Ellis, L., Ratnasingam, M., & Wheeler, M. (2012). Gender, sexual orientation, and occupational interests: Evidence of their interrelatedness. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 64–69.

35. Evers, A. (1995). The assessment of professional interests and work values. Bollettino Di Psicologia Applicata, 215, 3–10.

36. Fan, W., Cheung, F. M., Leong, F. T., & Cheung, S. F. (2012). Personality traits, vocational interests, and career exploration: A cross-cultural comparison between American and Hong Kong students. Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 105–119.

37. Fang, L., Bai, L., & Ling, W. (1996). Construction of the Chinese vocational interest inventory of Holland type. Acta Psychoogica Sinica, 28, 113–119.

38. Farh, J., Leong, F. T. L., & Law, K. S. (1998). Cross-cultural validity of Holland’s model in Hong Kong. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 425–440.

39. Ferreira, A. I., Rodrigues, R. I., & Costa Ferreira, P. (2015). Career interests of students in psychology specialties degrees: Psychometric evidence and correlations with the RIASEC dimensions. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance. doi:10.1007/s10775-015-9289-3

40. Fouad, N. A. (2002). Cross-cultural differences in vocational interests: Between-groups differences on the strong interest inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 283–289.

41. Gati, I. (1979). A hierarchical model for the structure of vocational interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 15, 90–106.

42. Gati, I. (1984). On the perceived structure of occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 25, 1–29.

43. Gati, I. (1991). The structure of vocational interests. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 309–324.

44. Glidden-Tracey, C., & Greenwood, A. K. (1997). A validation study of the Spanish self-directed search using back-translation procedures. Journal of Career Assessment, 5, 105–113.

45. Goh, D. S. (2001). Translation and validation of the Chinese form of the Strong Interest Inventory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 252–268.

46. Gottfredson, L. S. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory of occupational aspirations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 545–579.

47. Graen, G. B., Hui, C., Wakabayashi, M., & Wang, Z. (1997). Cross-cultural research alliances in organizational research: Cross-cultural partnership-making in action. In P. C. Earley, M. Erez, P. C. Earley, & M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial/ organizational psychology (pp. 160–189). San Francisco: The New Lexington Press/Jossey-Bass.

48. Hansen, J. C. (1984). The measurement of vocational interests: Issues and future directions. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (1st ed., pp. 99–136). New York: Wiley.

49. Hansen, J. I. C., Sullivan, B. A., & Luciana, M. (2011). A social neuroscientific model of vocational behavior. Journal of Career Assessment, 19, 216–227.

50. Hedrih, V. (2008). Structure of vocational interests in Serbia: Evaluation of the spherical model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 13–23.

51. Henoch, J. R., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O., & Trautwein, U. (2015). Who becomes a teacher? Challenging the “negative selection” hypothesis. Learning and Instruction, 36, 46–56.

52. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

53. Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

54. Holland, J. L. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6, 35–46.

55. Holland, J. L. (1966). The psychology of vocational choice: A theory of personality types and model environments. Oxford, UK: Blaisdell.

56. Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

57. Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

58. Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

59. Holtrop, D., Born, M. P., & de Vries, R. E. (2015). Relating the Spherical representation of vocational interests to the HEXACO personality model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 89, 10–20.

60. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

61. Huang, J. L., & Pearce, M. (2013). The other side of the coin: Vocational interests, interest differentiation and annual income at the occupation level of analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 315–326.

62. Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98.

63. Katzell, R. A., & Austin, J. T. (1992). From then to now: The development of industrial-organizational psychology in the United States. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 803–835.

64. Kossek, E. E., Huang, J. L., Piszczek, M. M., Fleenor, J. W., & Ruderman, M. (2015). Rating expatriate leader effectiveness in multisource feedback systems: Cultural distance and hierarchical effects. Human Resource Management. doi:10.1002/hrm.21763

65. LaBarbera, D. M. (2005). Physician assistant self-directed search Holland codes. Journal of Career Assessment, 13, 337–346.

66. Larson, L. M., & Borgen, F. H. (2002). Convergence of vocational interests and personality: Examples in an adolescent gifted sample. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 91–112.

67. Larson, L. M., Rottinghaus, P. J., & Borgen, F. H. (2002). Meta-analyses of Big Six interests and Big Five personality factors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 217–239.

68. LeBreton, J. M., Hargis, M. B., Griepentrog, B., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2007). A multidimensional approach for evaluating variables in organizational research and practice. Personnel Psychology, 60, 475–498.

69. 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.

70. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 36–49.

71. Lent, R. W., Sheu, H. B., & Brown, S. D. (2010). The self-efficacy-interest relationship and RIASEC type: Which is figure and which is ground? Comment on Armstrong and Vogel (2009). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 219–225.

72. Leong, F. T. L., Austin, J. T., Sekaran, U., & Komarraju, M. (1998). An evaluation of the cross-cultural validity of Holland’s theory: Career choices by workers in India. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 441–455.

73. Leong, F. L., & Brown, M. T. (1995). Theoretical issues in cross-cultural career development: Cultural validity and cultural specificity. In W. B. Walsh, S. H. Osipow, W. B. Walsh, & S. H. Osipow (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 143–180). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

74. Leong, F. T. L., Huang, J. L., & Mak, S. (2014). Protestant work ethic, Confucian values, and work-related attitudes in Singapore. Journal of Career Assessment, 22, 304–316.

75. Leuty, M. E., & Hansen, J.-I. C. (2014). Teasing apart the relations between age, birth cohort, and vocational interests. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61, 289–298.

76. Liu, M., & Huang, J. L. (2015). Cross-cultural adjustment to the United States: The role of extraversion change. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–15.

77. Long, L., Watanabe, N., & Tracey, T. J. G. (2006). Structure of interests in Japan: Application of the Personal Globe Inventory Occupational Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 38, 222–235.

78. Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316–345.

79. Luzzo, D. A., Hasper, P., Albert, K. A., Bibby, M. A., & Martinelli Jr, E. A. (1999). Effects of self-efficacy-enhancing interventions on the math/science self-efficacy and career interests, goals, and actions of career undecided college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 233–243.

80. Marcus, B., & Wagner, U. (2015). What do you want to be? Criterion-related validity of attained vocational aspirations versus inventoried person-vocation fit. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 51–62.

81. Meir, E. I., Esformes, Y., & Friedland, N. (1994). Congruence and differentiation as predictors of workers’ occupational stability and job performance. Journal of Career Assessment, 2, 40–54.

82. Mussel, P. (2013). Intellect: A theoretical framework for personality traits related to intellectual achievements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 885–906.

83. National Center for O^⋆NET Development. (2015). O^⋆NET OnLine. Retrieved from https://www.onetonline.org/

84. Nauta, M. M., Kahn, J. H., Angell, J. W., & Cantarelli, E. A. (2002). Identifying the antecedent in the relation between career interests and self-efficacy: Is it one, the other, or both? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 290–301.

85. Nye, C. D., Su, R., Rounds, J., & Drasgow, F. (2012). Vocational interests and performance a quantitative summary of over 60 years of research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 384–403.

86. Okazaki, S., & Sue, S. (1995). Methodological issues in assessment research with ethnic minorities. Psychological Assessment, 7, 367–375.

87. Ott-Holland, C. J., Huang, J. L., Ryan, A. M., Elizondo, F., & Wadlington, P. L. (2013). Culture and vocational interests: The moderating role of collectivism and gender egalitarianism. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 569–581.

88. Paessler, K. (2015). Sex differences in variability in vocational interests: Evidence from two large samples. European Journal of Personality, 29, 568–578.

89. Pässler, K., Beinicke, A., & Hell, B. (2015). Interests and intelligence: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 50, 30–51.

90. Pässler, K., & Hell, B. (2012). Do interests and cognitive abilities help explain college major choice equally well for women and men? Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 479–496.

91. Pozzebon, J. A., Visser, B. A., & Bogaert, A. F. (2015). Vocational interests, personality, and sociosexuality as indicators of a general masculinity/femininity factor. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 291–296.

92. Prediger, D. J. (1982). Dimensions underlying Holland’s hexagon: Missing link between interests and occupations? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21, 259–287.

93. Primavera, M. T., Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., Bruna, L., White, J. R., & Peradilla, I. (2010). The structure of vocational interests in Filipino adolescents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 213–226.

94. Proyer, R. T. (2006). The relationship between vocational interests and intelligence: Do findings generalize across different assessment methods? Psychology Science, 48, 463–476.

95. Proyer, R. T., & Häusler, J. (2007). Gender differences in vocational interests and their stability across different assessment methods. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 66, 243–247.

96. Rosenbloom, J. L., Ash, R. A., Dupont, B., & Coder, L. (2008). Why are there so few women in information technology? Assessing the role of personality in career choices. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 543–554.

97. Rottinghaus, P. J., Hees, C. K., & Conrath, J. A. (2009). Enhancing job satisfaction perspectives: Combining Holland themes and basic interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 139–151.

98. Rottinghaus, P. J., Larson, L. M., & Borgen, F. H. (2003). The relation of self-efficacy and interests: A meta-analysis of 60 samples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 221–236.

99. Rounds, J., & Su, R. (2014). The nature and power of interests. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 98–103.

100. Rounds, J., & Tracey, T. J. G. (1996). Cross-cultural structural equivalence of RIASEC models and measures. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 310–329.

101. Segal, Z. (1995). Etude des qualités métriques du «LIMEF»: inventaire d’intérêts professionnel multidimensionnel. European Review of Applied Psychology, 45, 127–134.

102. Sheu, H. B., Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Miller, M. J., Hennessy, K. D., & Duffy, R. D. (2010). Testing the choice model of social cognitive career theory across Holland themes: A meta-analytic path analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 252–264.

103. Sodano, S. M., & Tracey, T. J. G. (2008). Prestige in interest activity assessment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 310–317.

104. Song, Z., & Chon, K. (2012). General self-efficacy’s effect on career choice goals via vocational interests and person-job fit: A mediation model. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31, 798–808.

105. Spokane, A. R., Meir, E. I., & Catalano, M. (2000). Person-environment congruence and Holland’s theory: A review and reconsideration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 137–187.

106. Staggs, G. D., Larson, L. M., & Borgen, F. H. (2003). Convergence of specific factors in vocational interests and personality. Journal of Career Assessment, 11, 243–261.

107. Su, R., & Rounds, J. (2015). All STEM fields are not created equal: People and things interests explain gender disparities across STEM fields. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 189.

108. Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 859–884.

109. Sullivan, B. A., & Hansen, J. I. C. (2004). Mapping associations between interests and personality: Toward a conceptual understanding of individual differences in vocational behavior. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 287–298.

110. Tang, M. (2001). Investigation of the structure of vocational interests of Chinese college students. Journal of Career Assessment, 9, 365–379.

111. Tang, M. (2009). Examining the application of Holland’s theory to vocational college students. Journal of Career Assessment, 17, 86–98.

112. Tay, L., Su, R., & Rounds, J. (2011). People-things and data-ideas: Bipolar dimensions? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 424–440.

113. Tien, H. L. S. (2011). An exploration of adult career interests and work values in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12, 559–568.

114. Tracey, T. J. G., & Hopkins, N. (2001). Correspondence of interests and abilities with occupational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 178–189.

115. Tracey, T. J. G., & Rounds, J. (1993). Evaluating Holland’s and Gati’s vocational-interest models: A structural meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 229–246.

116. Tracey, T. J. G., & Rounds, J. (1996a). Contribution of the spherical representation of vocational interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 85–95.

117. Tracey, T. J. G., & Rounds, J. (1996b). The spherical representation of vocational interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 3–41.

118. Tracey, T. J. G., Watanabe, N., & Schneider, P. L. (1997). Structural invariance of vocational interests across Japanese and American cultures. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 346–354.

119. Tranberg, M., Slane, S., & Ekeberg, S. E. (1993). The relation between interest congruence and satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 253–264.

120. Tsabari, O., Tziner, A., & Meir, E. I. (2005). Updated meta-analysis on the relationship between congruence and satisfaction. Journal of Career Assessment, 13, 216–232.

121. Van de Vijver, F. J., & Leung, K. (2000). Methodological issues in psychological research on culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 33–51.

122. van der Zee, K. I., Zaal, J. N., & Piekstra, J. (2003). Validation of the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire in the context of personnel selection. European Journal of Personality, 17, S77–S100.

123. Van Iddekinge, C. H., Putka, D. J., & Campbell, J. P. (2011). Reconsidering vocational interests for personnel selection: The validity of an interest-based selection test in relation to job knowledge, job performance, and continuance intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 13–33.

124. Van Iddekinge, C. H., Roth, P. L., Putka, D. J., & Lanivich, S. E. (2011). Are you interested? A meta-analysis of relations between vocational interests and employee performance and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1167–1194.

125. Vock, M., Köller, O., & Nagy, G. (2013). Vocational interests of intellectually gifted and highly achieving young adults. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 305–328.

126. Wille, B., De Fruyt, F., & Feys, M. (2010). Vocational interests and Big Five traits as predictors of job instability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 547–558.

127. Wille, B., Tracey, T. J., Feys, M., & De Fruyt, F. (2014). A longitudinal and multi-method examination of interest-occupation congruence within and across time. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84, 59–73.

128. Yang, W., Stokes, G. S., & Hui, C. H. (2005). Cross-cultural validation of Holland’s interest structure in Chinese population. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 379–396.

129. Young, G., Tokar, D. M., & Subich, L. M. (1998). Congruence revisited: Do 11 indices differentially predict job satisfaction and is the relation moderated by person and situation variables? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 208–223.